Bladelock

[Kelsch03]

So I had a few ideas on how to make a bladelock more relevant but I need feed back and ideas. I think one thing that would definitely help is an Invocation that allows you use your charisma modifier instead of your dexterity when you use armor of shadows. Thoughts?

[Arcangel4774]

A two invocation investment is quite pricey for 18 ac

[Rebonack]

Rule #1 of trying to houserule a less gimpy Bladelock: Do not make Bladelock more invocation taxed than they already are.

Armor of Shadows: While wearing no armor your armor class is 13 plus Dex. If you have the Pact of the Blade class feature your armor class is 14 plus Dex OR 14 plus Cha.

That would give both single-class Dex and Str Bladelocks a pretty major durability boost. If we're talking multi-class, then a single level dip in either Barbarian or Fighter solves all their durability problems already.


Corollary of Rule #1: If you can find a good excuse to make Bladelock less invocation taxed, even better.

Roll the benefits of the UA Improved Pact Weapon into the basic Pact Weapon feature. Remove Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker from the game. Replace them with Baleful Strike.

Requires Warlock level 5
Baleful Strike: When you hit a creature with your Pact Weapon, you may channel a cantrip at them through your Pact Weapon as a bonus action. If this cantrip is normally a ranged spell attack it is instead considered a melee spell attack.

[bluthunda]

Ugh wouldn't a single dip into fighter or double dip into Paladin solve this issue anyway with heavy armor proficiency if STR based.

[Blue Lantern]

For me the simplest way to fix the bladelock is to make the pact weapon summonable as a bonus action and uses Charisma for the to hit and damage bonus, plus add an invocation to give proficiency with medium armour and shields.

That way you have a functional backup weapon if you don't want to spend resources to make the bladelock a frontliner, but can be a decent melee with only needing enough Str and Dex for your medium armour of choice, or can go full Dex with Armour of Shadows.

[Kobard]

One interesting option that I saw floated in discussion was to build the bladelock around the class assumptions of Eldritch Blast. Have the Bladelock be able to shape their Eldritch Blast into a melee weapon (or coat their weapon in force damage), which would allow them to use Cha to hit, get Agonizing Blast for damage, use melee abilities, and then remove the extra attack invocation, as their EB gets multiple attacks anyway. I still need to mull through the implications, but it's at least an interesting idea.

[jaappleton]

Ugh wouldn't a single dip into fighter or double dip into Paladin solve this issue anyway with heavy armor proficiency if STR based.

Lots of people don't want to slow down their character progression just to make a concept work. And I get why.


My solution?

Work with your DM, of course, but IMO this should already exist.

If you take the Armor of Shadows Invocation, AND you are Pact of the Blade, your AC = 16 + Dex Mod

That's the same AC as granted by the Redemption Paladin. Alternatively, AC = Cha + Dex is fine as well.

[Kelsch03]

Ok so it seems like the major problem is the Invocation tax, so what if it was something like this

Eldritch Invocation: Armor of the Damned
Prerequisites: 5th level, pact of the Blade
You can cast mage armor at will without expending any components, when you cast this spell using this Invocation your AC becomes 13+ your charisma modifier.

[rbstr]

Making Armor of Shadows more akin to Medium Armor is neat idea. 15+dex (max 2), maybe 16+2 max.
Maybe also, "When wielding a Pact Blade in one hand you may also conjure a Shield of Shadows to hold in your other hand giving you +2 AC"

Like, I'm a big fan of the Bladelock and do see that there are a few things that could be done to make it compete better with the Blast-lock.
However, I think the best thing to do to "fix" bladelocks, though, is realize warlock is a full caster. Even more than that: Blade Pact isn't even a class archetype. It's something less than that. Making the pure Warlock into a melee fighter should absolutely require a large portion of their invocations or taking martial levels.

A lot of Bladelock "fixes" are things that make it as good as a martials at melee without taking into account it's a full caster. An example is giving it Cha-to-hit. I find it to be just straight up bad balance to let a fullcaster not have to deal with some kind of tradeoff choice between melee and casting stat. The Half-casters, third-casters, Bladesingings and Valor Bards don't get to use their casting stat to hit. (and Shillelagh isn't available on any single-classed extra attack class without doing some kind of trade via a class feature or feat). Frankly, the Hexblade getting to do it is substantial power creep.

[Rebonack]

One interesting option that I saw floated in discussion was to build the bladelock around the class assumptions of Eldritch Blast. Have the Bladelock be able to shape their Eldritch Blast into a melee weapon (or coat their weapon in force damage), which would allow them to use Cha to hit, get Agonizing Blast for damage, use melee abilities, and then remove the extra attack invocation, as their EB gets multiple attacks anyway. I still need to mull through the implications, but it's at least an interesting idea.

Basically allowing you to use Eldritch Blast as a melee spell. Wouldn't really encourage you to attack in melee, but it would be a nice backup if someone got up in your face.

I actually like the idea of allowing a Bladelock to be fairly squishy, but rewarding them with absolutely explosive damage for taking a risk. Letting them channel a cantrip at anyone they hit with their pact weapon would do that. They would still be dealing with MAD to a degree, unless we also rolled Hexblade's Hexwarrior feature into Pact of the Blade.

As it stands Pact of the Blade is tremendously underwhelming as a class feature all on its own. Especially when you compare it to the utility of several cantrips from any class list or having an invisible shape-shifting familiar. Being able to cast Shillelagh as a Tome Pact is arguably more powerful than what Pact of the Blade offers. You have to start sinking extra invocations just to catch up with what a Tomelock can get using only the base class feature, and that just doesn't sit right with me.

[Vogie]

One interesting option that I saw floated in discussion was to build the bladelock around the class assumptions of Eldritch Blast. Have the Bladelock be able to shape their Eldritch Blast into a melee weapon (or coat their weapon in force damage), which would allow them to use Cha to hit, get Agonizing Blast for damage, use melee abilities, and then remove the extra attack invocation, as their EB gets multiple attacks anyway. I still need to mull through the implications, but it's at least an interesting idea.

I certainly like it. You could have the initial Eldritch Blast actually spawn the weapon as a PotB bonus. It almost seems like they wanted to go that way, with the "Eldritch spear" invocation. A pact blade is a sustained damage weapon (weapon damage augmented by charisma), while your EBs also could be akin to throwing knives.

I'm thinking visually of the Eldritch weapons used by the bad guys in Doctor Strange.

[Easy_Lee]

Extra attack at 5 should not require an invocation, and blade pact warlocks should get medium armor and shields like Valor Bards. That's about it if you want to fix the balance with the other PHB full-casting gish.

Beyond that, an invocation at later levels that allows you to bonus action attack after casting a cantrip would be cool, as it would keep blade warlocks competitive with other warlocks at high levels. I'd rather have that than Lifedrinker at 12.

[clash]

The only problem with bladelocks is that people always want them to be equal parts caster and fighter. Fighting is not going to be as effective on a bladelock as casting because the warlock is a full caster. Just like the EK will never be as good at casting as fighting, because he is a fighter. Bladelock adds versatility options. It is not meant to replace EB but instead work when EB wouldnt.

Want to make an opportunity attack? Bladelock
Someone is in your face and you dont want disadvantage? Bladelock
Your in a zone of silence or an antimagic field(debatable)? Bladelock

At the end of the day you are a warlock and EB is your main stick. The blade pact wasnt meant to replace it but instead shore up its weaknesses.

[RSP]

Requires Warlock level 5
Baleful Strike: When you hit a creature with your Pact Weapon, you may channel a cantrip at them through your Pact Weapon as a bonus action. If this cantrip is normally a ranged spell attack it is instead considered a melee spell attack.

This would be extremely OP to allow. Getting 2x attacks per turn (w/ Thirsting Blade) plus Eldritch Blast (and Agonizing Blast) at no cost of limited resources is pretty bad in terms of balance. At 5th level you have 2x (1d8+mod) plus 2x (1d10+mod), no other class can compete with that, particularly for an at will Ability.

That's a lot better than any other class and it gets more powerful as you level, adding the full damage of a blasting Warlock to the at will damage of a melee character is way too unbalancing.

[Laserlight]

This would be extremely OP to allow. Getting 2x attacks per turn (w/ Thirsting Blade)

You must have missed the part about "Remove Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker from the game. Replace them with Baleful Strike."

[Rebonack]

This would be extremely OP to allow. Getting 2x attacks per turn (w/ Thirsting Blade) plus Eldritch Blast (and Agonizing Blast) at no cost of limited resources is pretty bad in terms of balance. At 5th level you have 2x (1d8+mod) plus 2x (1d10+mod), no other class can compete with that, particularly for an at will Ability.

That's a lot better than any other class and it gets more powerful as you level, adding the full damage of a blasting Warlock to the at will damage of a melee character is way too unbalancing.

Good thing I also advocate removing Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker from the invocation list before adding Baleful Strike to it. The Warlock would get to cast EB, but only if their first attack hits. Unlike an extra-attack user, if that first attack whiffs that's all they've got. I also don't think they need a defense boost if they're getting damage this potent, especially if Darkness/Devil's Sight shenanigans are taken into account. I like the idea of the Bladelock being a melee class that can put out some really explosive damage while also being at risk. They should be using their spells to stay alive rather than straight AC.

That would help to distinguish them from other single-class melees since the way they go about their melee-ing is a bit different.

[RSP]

You must have missed the part about "Remove Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker from the game. Replace them with Baleful Strike."


Good thing I also advocate removing Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker from the invocation list before adding Baleful Strike to it. The Warlock would get to cast EB, but only if their first attack hits. Unlike an extra-attack user, if that first attack whiffs that's all they've got. I also don't think they need a defense boost if they're getting damage this potent, especially if Darkness/Devil's Sight shenanigans are taken into account. I like the idea of the Bladelock being a melee class that can put out some really explosive damage while also being at risk. They should be using their spells to stay alive rather than straight AC.

That would help to distinguish them from other single-class melees since the way they go about their melee-ing is a bit different.

Are you removing multiclassing from the game too?

Not to mention the invocation as written allows Booming Blade + Eldritch Blast, every round, all day. Essentially a free all day Quicken Spell for SCAG Cantrips and EB. Still OP.

I like the idea of going with the old Magus routine, but it's just not balanced to allow all day free BA EB whenever you use your weapon.

EK gets something similar but a) higher level, b) have to take the Cast a Spell action to get 1 extra attack (which can't also be a Cantrip), so no doubling up on Character Level scaling Cantrips, c) sacrifice more attacks, and d) use two different stats to attack when using this ability (whereas a Hexblade can use one), one of which is usually a dump stat, but is usually tertiary at best.

The trigger being hitting with your Pact weapon is probably where you could make a significant change to reign it in. Maybe go with making the attempt it's own Action like "as an Action you can make one weapon attack with your Pact Weapon. If it does damage, you can cast EB, only targeting the same target, as a Bonus Action."

I'd still up the level as EB and AB is much better than any Cantrip damage an EK will get, and your invocation is available earlier.

[Rebonack]

Are you removing multiclassing from the game too?

Don't have to remove it. It's an optional variant. The discussion here is about how to make a pure-class Bladelock a reasonable contender with Tome and Chain. Players see Bladelock and think, 'Oh, that's cool' and understandably wish to accomplish cool things with it. Bladelock is heavily invocation taxed and even then they're far more risky. Trap options are bad.


Not to mention the invocation as written allows Booming Blade + Eldritch Blast, every round, all day. Essentially a free all day Quicken Spell for SCAG Cantrips and EB. Still OP.

The trigger being hitting with your Pact weapon is probably where you could make a significant change to reign it in. Maybe go with making the attempt it's own Action like "as an Action you can make one weapon attack with your Pact Weapon. If it does damage, you can cast EB, only targeting the same target, as a Bonus Action."

I'd still up the level as EB and AB is much better than any Cantrip damage an EK will get, and your invocation is available earlier.

That's a good point. The SCAG cantrips hit like a train and doubling up on them is nasty (Just ask the Sorcadin). Being able to get in a single unaugmented weapon attack before unloading some eldritch blasts point blank would be plenty. The Bladelock needs to be able to favorably contend with a Tomelock running Shillelagh and his SCAG melee cantrip of choice. If the gish path can't eclipse the full-caster path in melee damage on a consistent basis, then there's something fishy going on.

[RSP]

Don't have to remove it. It's an optional variant. The discussion here is about how to make a pure-class Bladelock a reasonable contender with Tome and Chain. Players see Bladelock and think, 'Oh, that's cool' and understandably wish to accomplish cool things with it. Bladelock is heavily invocation taxed and even then they're far more risky. Trap options are bad.

I think it's a bad move to try and "fix" a subclass by removing multiclassing for the table. Perhaps some play with no multiclasing already, but I doubt it's anywhere near a majority of players who do so.

What you're suggesting is a significant change to how the Bladelock is set up (removing TB and LD). I'm not saying there aren't ways to make the subclass better, but I'd suggest going with something that doesn't limit everyone else's character build options.

Perhaps just rolling TB into the Pact feature would do to free up an invocation, if invocation tax is the issue. LD stays as is but the extra attack comes automatic at level 5.

Seems a better way to bump the Bladelock (if you feel it's needed), without tearing down the entire design of the subclass. This would also keep Hex and LD relevant as both need the extra attack to remain useful.

[Kobard]

The only problem with bladelocks is that people always want them to be equal parts caster and fighter. Fighting is not going to be as effective on a bladelock as casting because the warlock is a full caster.

At the end of the day you are a warlock and EB is your main stick. The blade pact wasnt meant to replace it but instead shore up its weaknesses.Sure, but so are Clerics, Druids, and Valor Bards.

IMHO, the biggest design flaw of the Warlock is that Mearls & Co. got the mechanics of the Pact and Boon reversed. The Boon should provide a steady stream of options at set levels as part of the core chassis, while the patron should be more closely tied to invocations. I suspect they thought that there would be greater build emphasis on the Patron rather than on the Boon. So they instead underestimated how much the Boon contributes more readily to a Warlock's playstyle and build, at least when one considers invocation taxes.

[rbstr]

"Invocation Tax" paints the bladelock invocations as some kind of drawback. But the reality is it's an advantage. The Bladelock pays a lot less for its melee than the valor bard or bladesinger: A single level 3 feature choice and two invocations.

Like, compared to a valor bard: You get extra attack a level earlier and you still get your level 6 patron feature. As a mid-high level boost you lifedrinker at 12 instead of War Magic at 14 and you still get your level 14 patron feature.
If Bladelock worked like the full-caster melee archetypes you wouldn't get to have the Dark One's Blessing, Dark One's Own Luck or Hurl Through Hell still. You'd give those up for weapon/armor proficiency, extra attack, and lifedrinker, respectively (guess warlock's base class would have a level 10 feature then too, but who knows what). But hey, you wouldn't be paying invocations taxes!

"Fixes" for the bladelock have to take that into account. Without substantially reworking the class to make blade an archetype, rather than a one-level class feature, the bladepact needs to take up invocations as a trade for melee power - at least one per major feature. IMO, without changing anything else, they need a level-3 invocation (improved pact weapon works pretty well there) and something at like 15-17 to add a bit more damage.

Though, outside of the invocations, I do think that the initial Blade Pact pick should come with Medium armor and shield proficiency.

[clash]

"Invocation Tax" paints the bladelock invocations as some kind of drawback. But the reality is it's an advantage. The Bladelock pays a lot less for its melee than the valor bard or bladesinger: A single level 3 feature choice and two invocations.

Like, compared to a valor bard: You get extra attack a level earlier and you still get your level 6 patron feature. As a mid-high level boost you lifedrinker at 12 instead of War Magic at 14 and you still get your level 14 patron feature.
If Bladelock worked like the full-caster melee archetypes you wouldn't get to have the Dark One's Blessing, Dark One's Own Luck or Hurl Through Hell still. You'd give those up for weapon/armor proficiency, extra attack, and lifedrinker, respectively (guess warlock's base class would have a level 10 feature then too, but who knows what). But hey, you wouldn't be paying invocations taxes!

"Fixes" for the bladelock have to take that into account. Without substantially reworking the class to make blade an archetype, rather than a one-level class feature, the bladepact needs to take up invocations as a trade for melee power - at least one per major feature. IMO, without changing anything else, they need a level-3 invocation (improved pact weapon works pretty well there) and something at like 15-17 to add a bit more damage.

Though, outside of the invocations, I do think that the initial Blade Pact pick should come with Medium armor and shield proficiency.

Exactly this. Well said

[Easy_Lee]

"Invocation Tax" paints the bladelock invocations as some kind of drawback. But the reality is it's an advantage. The Bladelock pays a lot less for its melee than the valor bard or bladesinger: A single level 3 feature choice and two invocations.

Like, compared to a valor bard: You get extra attack a level earlier and you still get your level 6 patron feature. As a mid-high level boost you lifedrinker at 12 instead of War Magic at 14 and you still get your level 14 patron feature.
If Bladelock worked like the full-caster melee archetypes you wouldn't get to have the Dark One's Blessing, Dark One's Own Luck or Hurl Through Hell still. You'd give those up for weapon/armor proficiency, extra attack, and lifedrinker, respectively (guess warlock's base class would have a level 10 feature then too, but who knows what). But hey, you wouldn't be paying invocations taxes!

"Fixes" for the bladelock have to take that into account. Without substantially reworking the class to make blade an archetype, rather than a one-level class feature, the bladepact needs to take up invocations as a trade for melee power - at least one per major feature. IMO, without changing anything else, they need a level-3 invocation (improved pact weapon works pretty well there) and something at like 15-17 to add a bit more damage.

Though, outside of the invocations, I do think that the initial Blade Pact pick should come with Medium armor and shield proficiency.

The reason people talk about invocation taxes is because blade pact doesn't bring a fully functioning blade with it. Contrast not with Valor Bard, but with the other pacts.

Chain is a fully functioning familiar superior to a normal familiar, and there are invocations to enhance it.

Tome is a fully functioning ritual caster superior to a normal ritual caster, and there are invocations to enhance it.

Blade pact is not a fully functioning weapon user. In addition to concerns about armor, the lack of extra attack and something around level 11-12 (war magic, whirlwind attack, etc.) means that blade pact requires two extra invocation investments just to stay competitive with other Gish characters. Its invocations don't enhance it; they keep it the same as it was at level 3 relative to other gish characters.

Valor Bards automatically get extra attack and war magic as part of their progression when they choose Valor Bard. They don't need to give up other character progression options in addition to giving up becoming a lore bard.

That's the difference. And that's why blade pact warlocks are never as versatile as others warlocks. They give up two invocations to get full benefit of their pact. The invocations, rather than enhancing blade pact, merely keep it competitive for damage. Compare with the Moon Bow invocation from UA, which allows Blade locks to use a bow with unlimited arrows and grants them a smite option. That adds meaningful capabilities. The PHB blade invocations don't. They aren't a choice, they're required if you want to continue being a functional Gish.

These things have been discussed extensively in the past, and the above is the overall consensus we reached back then. Feel free to disagree, but you're disagreeing with a lot more people than just me.

[Rebonack]

I think it's a bad move to try and "fix" a subclass by removing multiclassing for the table. Perhaps some play with no multiclasing already, but I doubt it's anywhere near a majority of players who do so.

I think you may have misunderstood. This is all a hypothetical 'how would you make Bladelock functional in a single-class game?' sort of situation. Bladelock already works just fine if you can take a one level dip in Fighter or Barbarian depending on the sort of flavor you're shooting for. It still isn't the best choice for creating a gish (hi Sorcadin, hey there Fighter/Abjurer) but it's functional.


Seems a better way to bump the Bladelock (if you feel it's needed), without tearing down the entire design of the subclass.

Subclasses don't have to be perfectly balanced, but I think my big issue with Bladelock is that they don't really do what they seem like they should be doing. Tomelock gives you greatly expanded at-will casting options with the feature alone and with a one-invocation investment you've potentially got access to every single ritual in the game depending on how nice your DM is. Chainlock gives you an amazing scout/help monkey that can break action economy with the feature alone and doubles down on those strengths with a one-invocation investment.

Bladelock, thus, should be providing some kind of tangible benefit just like the other Boons do. It feels like that benefit should be 'gives you more damage provided you are willing to melee and allows you to survive in melee' but it doesn't actually do those things.


This would also keep Hex and LD relevant as both need the extra attack to remain useful.

Concentrating on Hex as a Bladelock strikes me as a pretty iffy plan to begin with. You're opening yourself up to attacks and an extra 2d6 damage per round isn't that amazing when contrasted with, say, blinding everything within 15 feet of you with no save. A Bladelock in melee is going to be losing their concentration pretty quickly unless they have some means of preventing themselves from being hit.

[Laserlight]

Concentrating on Hex as a Bladelock strikes me as a pretty iffy plan to begin with. You're opening yourself up to attacks and an extra 2d6 damage per round isn't that amazing when contrasted with, say, blinding everything within 15 feet of you with no save. A Bladelock in melee is going to be losing their concentration pretty quickly unless they have some means of preventing themselves from being hit.

Well, of course you have your warcaster tax feat. I haven't lost Concentration yet. Partly because I always cast Darkness instead; I've cast Hex once, perhaps twice, from L3 to L6.
I do need to persuade my DM that upcasting Darkness should extend duration.

[Rebonack]

Well, of course you have your warcaster tax feat. I haven't lost Concentration yet. Partly because I always cast Darkness instead; I've cast Hex once, perhaps twice, from L3 to L6.
I do need to persuade my DM that upcasting Darkness should extend duration.

Darkness is a Bladelock's best friend. Smart positioning can easily split an encounter and deny enemy artillery line of sight. And, y'know, it prevents you from getting hit in the face with an axe pretty well.

I'm personally a fan of the spellpoint variant for the Warlock and letting them cast spells at lower levels if need be. Getting punished for picking spells that don't scale feels awful, and most of the Warlock's spells don't scale with level. If you really wanted to take advantage of Pact Casting to its fullest, you would be restricting an already restricted spell-list. Using spellpoints is a much more elegant solution than trying to homebrew an upcast effect for a wide selection of spells.

[Easy_Lee]

Taking devil's sight and your weapon invocations then casting darkness every fight prevents a blade lock from picking up most of the more interesting options that make warlocks interesting and useful. Don't know what groups you guys play in, but most of mine have more than enough damage already. I'd rather have additional options, especially things like eldritch sight and Mask of Many Faces.

[Laserlight]

Taking devil's sight and your weapon invocations then casting darkness every fight prevents a blade lock from picking up most of the more interesting options that make warlocks interesting and useful. Don't know what groups you guys play in, but most of mine have more than enough damage already. I'd rather have additional options, especially things like eldritch sight and Mask of Many Faces.

MoMF has been amusing for RP but not actually useful--except this last session, when "a hobgoblin" walked into the giants' hall to scout it out. But yeah, I'd really rather have more invocations, or fewer taxes. And if I needed Improved Pact Blade, I'd be feeling the pinch even worse.

[Iamcreative]

The reason people talk about invocation taxes is because blade pact doesn't bring a fully functioning blade with it. Contrast not with Valor Bard, but with the other pacts.

Chain is a fully functioning familiar superior to a normal familiar, and there are invocations to enhance it.

Tome is a fully functioning ritual caster superior to a normal ritual caster, and there are invocations to enhance it.

Blade pact is not a fully functioning weapon user. In addition to concerns about armor, the lack of extra attack and something around level 11-12 (war magic, whirlwind attack, etc.) means that blade pact requires two extra invocation investments just to stay competitive with other Gish characters. Its invocations don't enhance it; they keep it the same as it was at level 3 relative to other gish characters.

Valor Bards automatically get extra attack and war magic as part of their progression when they choose Valor Bard. They don't need to give up other character progression options in addition to giving up becoming a lore bard.

That's the difference. And that's why blade pact warlocks are never as versatile as others warlocks. They give up two invocations to get full benefit of their pact. The invocations, rather than enhancing blade pact, merely keep it competitive for damage. Compare with the Moon Bow invocation from UA, which allows Blade locks to use a bow with unlimited arrows and grants them a smite option. That adds meaningful capabilities. The PHB blade invocations don't. They aren't a choice, they're required if you want to continue being a functional Gish.

These things have been discussed extensively in the past, and the above is the overall consensus we reached back then. Feel free to disagree, but you're disagreeing with a lot more people than just me.

Not to be rude but tomelock isnt a ritual caster. They get 3 cantrips from any class list, which is really nice until you realize that if theres a combat going on youll never cast a cantrip other than EB 95% of the time. And between friends minor illusion and presditigiation youve got basically all the utility you need on cantrips you already have access too. Personally, my tomelock has casted her tome cantrips... once? And that was mending in order to fix a unimportant object that was never used again.

Similiarly with chain, having a flying invisible scout is good, but having an invisible rogue/bard/shadow monk scout is better (again that may just be my experience)

But all in all blade seems really in line for a feature thats like... 50% ribbon no matter which you choose.

And yes you can spend 2 invocations to become decent in melee. But like people have said before me, its not the sub-class. And is balanaced as such. The fact that you cant be a melee monster and sit back and cast (a) 9th lvl spell... isnt really worth fixing in my eyes.

Tl;dr all boons are basically ribbons if you have other people in your party. Theyre back up/emergency options (in my experience) and are balanced as such. Not against core class concepts like valor/lore bard.

[Easy_Lee]

Not to be rude but tomelock isnt a ritual caster. They get 3 cantrips from any class list, which is really nice until you realize that if theres a combat going on youll never cast a cantrip other than EB 95% of the time. And between friends minor illusion and presditigiation youve got basically all the utility you need on cantrips you already have access too. Personally, my tomelock has casted her tome cantrips... once? And that was mending in order to fix a unimportant object that was never used again.

Similiarly with chain, having a flying invisible scout is good, but having an invisible rogue/bard/shadow monk scout is better (again that may just be my experience)

But all in all blade seems really in line for a feature thats like... 50% ribbon no matter which you choose.

And yes you can spend 2 invocations to become decent in melee. But like people have said before me, its not the sub-class. And is balanaced as such. The fact that you cant be a melee monster and sit back and cast (a) 9th lvl spell... isnt really worth fixing in my eyes.

Tl;dr all boons are basically ribbons if you have other people in your party. Theyre back up/emergency options (in my experience) and are balanced as such. Not against core class concepts like valor/lore bard.

If that's the way you want to play it, then it's still the case that blade is needlessly limiting. Both the Tome and Chain features are useful on their own with no invocation investment, and they stay equally useful at all levels. The blade feature starts out okay and quickly becomes useless if you don't invest additional invocations. That's why it's a tax: don't pay and you don't play.

Bear in mind that the SCAG cantrips didn't exist when the PHB was released, and that even they don't let blade pact deal competitive damage compared to Agonizing EB, the go-to option for most warlocks. As to whether that's a problem with blade pact or Agonizing EB, I'm unsure. But I can tell you that right now, blade pact costs too many invocations for what you get.

Again, compare with Moon Bow. That invocation adds capability. That's what a blade pact invocation should look like. But giving up invocations for Extra attack and Lifedrinker is crap.

[rbstr]

None of the pacts are worth all that much on their own. Which is my point...you can't give huge capability to the boon choice alone.
The blade is basically martial melee weapon proficiency and a free (cool) weapon.
Chain is a Level 1 spell with a small upgrade.
Tome is some cantrips.

[Easy_Lee]

None of the pacts are worth all that much on their own. Which is my point...you can't give huge capability to the boon choice alone.
The blade is basically martial melee weapon proficiency and a free (cool) weapon.
Chain is a Level 1 spell with a small upgrade.
Tome is some cantrips.

The tome isn't great on its own (WotC overvalued cantrips), but it enables the warlock to take one invocation to gain the best ritual-casting in the game. Additionally, three cantrips is still three at-will powers. Blade pact gives one.

An invisible demon familiar that can even attack is a big deal.

And you still haven't addressed the problem. Summoning a magic weapon and attacking once with it is useful...at level 3. After 5, attacking once with a magic weapon quickly becomes a waste of a turn. Meanwhile, cantrips and familiars are still equally useful at every level. That's the problem. I don't know how more clearly I can state this, so I'm going to bold it. The problem with blade pact warlocks is their feature isn't useful past level 5 without extra invocation investment. The same cannot be said for the other pacts.

The argument for how things are seems to be this: gaining gish features is a bigger investment than what pacts are worth. Are you sure about that? Unless they take the feat polearm mastery or GWM and have high strength, or take Moon Bow and Sharpshooter, blade pact warlocks still lose to agonizing eldritch blast for DPR. In other words, blade pact warlocks can give up half of their features and probably multiclass fighter just to stay slightly ahead, assuming they're in a position to melee attack. And they have to give up spell DC progression, at least temporarily, to pull it off.

Regardless of how you look at it, it's not fair. Gish features are worthwhile on other casters because other casters don't have a competitive source of at-will damage. Warlocks do. For warlocks, even a full set of gish features wouldn't be very competitive, just adequate. Blade warlocks get inferior gish features, don't get war magic like EKs or valor bards do, don't get extra AC and a bonus to con saves or the other things that spellsingers do, and they give up half of their features just to get their inferior features. All of that on the caster with the strongest at-will damage option, so good that even most blade warlocks take it? It makes no sense to play a bladelock. Bladelocks are flavor, nothing more.

[clash]

The tome isn't great on its own (WotC overvalued cantrips), but it enables the warlock to take one invocation to gain the best ritual-casting in the game. Additionally, three cantrips is still three at-will powers. Blade pact gives one.


Blade pact opens up all weapons to you. That is more than one at will ability.



An invisible demon familiar that can even attack is a big deal.


An invisible demon that doesnt scale at all even if you wanted to spend invocations to make it better. I would argue this degrades in value as you level especially once enemies have any sort of blindsight and/or can deal enough damage in 1 hit to kill it. Cantrips are the only thing that actually scale.



Regardless of how you look at it, it's not fair. Gish features are worthwhile on other casters because other casters don't have a competitive source of at-will damage. Warlocks do. For warlocks, even a full set of gish features wouldn't be very competitive, just adequate.

Again bladepact shouldnt be used to replace EB. Just as a tome pact wouldnt use one of theose cantrips to replace EB. It should be used to give another option for when EB wouldnt work or would have drawbacks(in silence or in melee)

[Blue Lantern]

An invisible demon familiar that can even attack is a big deal.

Note that the familiar can only attack if you sacrifice your action for it, so in most cases is even less worth that using the pact weapon.


And you still haven't addressed the problem. Summoning a magic weapon and attacking once with it is useful...at level 3. After 5, attacking once with a magic weapon quickly becomes a waste of a turn. Meanwhile, cantrips and familiars are still equally useful at every level. That's the problem. I don't know how more clearly I can state this, so I'm going to bold it. The problem with blade pact warlocks is their feature isn't useful past level 5 without extra invocation investment. The same cannot be said for the other pacts.

Well, if you are counting invocation investment, then you should compare pact of the blade without thirsting blade to eldritch blast without agonising blast, which means 2d10 vs 1d8+DEX/STR to 2d6+STR, which is very comparable, eldritch blast has higher damage potential but also higher variance, while the blade has higher floor.

If you count a single invocation investment you have 1d10+CHA x2 vs 2 weapon attack, which again is comparable, slightly in favour of the weapon, and stays that way until level 11. Is only after that that your argument actually takes root and blade pact requires an additional investment in Lifedrinker and still lags behind, even more after level 17.

So for levels 3-10, pact of the blade is a competitive option even with the same number of resources spent, with the difference that pact of the blade has the option to spend additional resources to further increase his damage.

Is only after level 11 that the pact of the blade starts to lag behind, and this sadly another one example of D&D designer saying that they don't really care that much of what happens after level 10 and left the problems to DMs and groups to handle.



Regardless of how you look at it, it's not fair. Gish features are worthwhile on other casters because other casters don't have a competitive source of at-will damage. Warlocks do. For warlocks, even a full set of gish features wouldn't be very competitive, just adequate. Blade warlocks get inferior gish features, don't get war magic like EKs or valor bards do, don't get extra AC and a bonus to con saves or the other things that spellsingers do, and they give up half of their features just to get their inferior features. All of that on the caster with the strongest at-will damage option, so good that even most blade warlocks take it? It makes no sense to play a bladelock. Bladelocks are flavor, nothing more.

This is an interesting point, if you look at it this way though the simplest and fairest solution would be something of the sort of refluffing pact of the blade as "You shape your eldritch blast like a melee weapon bla bla bla" which basically translate mechanically to "you can use your eldritch blast in melee range without disadvantage" which keeps is benefit level similar to that of other pact boon, keeps the at will damage of the warlock consistent, would require extra resource investment for defensive purposes, and can not use feats to increase is damage output.

[Laserlight]

Well, if you are counting invocation investment, then you should compare pact of the blade without thirsting blade to eldritch blast without agonising blast, which means 2d10 vs 1d8+DEX/STR to 2d6+STR, which is very comparable, eldritch blast has higher damage potential but also higher variance, while the blade has higher floor.

If you count a single invocation investment you have 1d10+CHA x2 vs 2 weapon attack, which again is comparable, slightly in favour of the weapon, and stays that way until level 11.

With the possible exception that with EB I could stay behind cover back yonder, only popping around a corner long enough to EB the enemy and then duck back, whereas when I use a sword, there's always the chance some ill-mannered upstart will have the unmitigated gall to swing back.

[Blue Lantern]

With the possible exception that with EB I could stay behind cover back yonder, only popping around a corner long enough to EB the enemy and then duck back, whereas when I use a sword, there's always the chance some ill-mannered upstart will have the unmitigated gall to swing back.

Well, if there is cover for you, stand to reason there is cover for the poor smuck you are shooting, making the ranged option less useful. On the other hand if you are in the opposite situation and you have the smuck in your face, on one case you are at disadvantage, on the other you have a better fighting chance.
But I believe the ranged vs melee is a different argument.

Class features aren't always about more power, but also in having more options.

[Easy_Lee]

This is an interesting point, if you look at it this way though the simplest and fairest solution would be something of the sort of refluffing pact of the blade as "You shape your eldritch blast like a melee weapon bla bla bla" which basically translate mechanically to "you can use your eldritch blast in melee range without disadvantage" which keeps is benefit level similar to that of other pact boon, keeps the at will damage of the warlock consistent, would require extra resource investment for defensive purposes, and can not use feats to increase is damage output.

I've proposed that sort of thing before. Sample:
- pact weapon feature
- you learn the cantrip eldritch blast if you didn't already know it
- when you cast eldritch blast, you may make up to two melee weapon attacks in place of up to two rays.

That works out very nicely as a single feature that adds scaling melee capability. But the concern is that this is too strong if combined with great weapon master or sharpshooter, especially on a devil's sight warlock with Darkness.

The simplest solution would be to restrict blade warlocks to one-handed weapons, just like Bladesingers. Do that, and the above should be fine.

[Rebonack]

I've proposed that sort of thing before. Sample:
- pact weapon feature
- you learn the cantrip eldritch blast if you didn't already know it
- when you cast eldritch blast, you may make up to two melee weapon attacks in place of up to two rays.

That works out very nicely as a single feature that adds scaling melee capability. But the concern is that this is too strong if combined with great weapon master or sharpshooter, especially on a devil's sight warlock with Darkness.

The simplest solution would be to restrict blade warlocks to one-handed weapons, just like Bladesingers. Do that, and the above should be fine.

Another variant I was fond of:
-pact weapon feature
-pact weapon is a focus
-learn Eldritch Blast if you don't know it
-can cast Eldritch Blast as a melee spell attack

That would add a little bit of versatility to a bread and butter cantrip. Maybe keep Lifedrinker and have it add your Prof bonus to damage if you use EB as a melee spell to reward you for the risk. That would put melee damage above ranged EBing, but not by a tremendous amount.

[RSP]

I think you may have misunderstood. This is all a hypothetical 'how would you make Bladelock functional in a single-class game?' sort of situation. Bladelock already works just fine if you can take a one level dip in Fighter or Barbarian depending on the sort of flavor you're shooting for. It still isn't the best choice for creating a gish (hi Sorcadin, hey there Fighter/Abjurer) but it's functional.

I gotcha. Just throwing out what I see as pitfalls. A Multiclassing helps pretty much any gish, which I guess makes sense as that's what gishes are.



Concentrating on Hex as a Bladelock strikes me as a pretty iffy plan to begin with. You're opening yourself up to attacks and an extra 2d6 damage per round isn't that amazing when contrasted with, say, blinding everything within 15 feet of you with no save. A Bladelock in melee is going to be losing their concentration pretty quickly unless they have some means of preventing themselves from being hit.

Agreed on Hex as a Melee combatant being an iffy proposition, however, it is a factor in effectiveness.

Blasting with Hex/EB+AB is one of, if not the, best ranged single target damage dealer in the game.

It's tough to compete with that as a gish as any attempt to come close to that output, just furthers "casters are better at melee than non-casters." Bladelock s dealing EB damage would essentially break balance.

I do like how they've expanded options for all Warlocks with the UA options. Adding Smite Lite and Weapons as Focus Invocations helps Bladelocks, as does Hexblade's Chr to attack. These options improve Bladelocks a ton.

[Rebonack]

I gotcha. Just throwing out what I see as pitfalls. A Multiclassing helps pretty much any gish, which I guess makes sense as that's what gishes are.

Totally agree on that. But arguably the Eldritch Knight, Paladin, Valor Bard, and Bladesinger all work just fine as melee guys who also cast magic. Bladelocks really stick out as the least compelling of those options.


Agreed on Hex as a Melee combatant being an iffy proposition, however, it is a factor in effectiveness.

Blasting with Hex/EB+AB is one of, if not the, best ranged single target damage dealer in the game.

That title is likely taken by an archer or crossbow master with Sharpshooter. But I'll agree that Warlock is a pretty close second.


It's tough to compete with that as a gish as any attempt to come close to that output, just furthers "casters are better at melee than non-casters." Bladelock s dealing EB damage would essentially break balance.

I do like how they've expanded options for all Warlocks with the UA options. Adding Smite Lite and Weapons as Focus Invocations helps Bladelocks, as does Hexblade's Chr to attack. These options improve Bladelocks a ton.

Hilariously enough, with that one level dip in Fighter (grab the Close Quarters Shooting style, works with any ranged attack not only ranged weapon attacks) any flavor of Warlock can meet or exceed the melee damage of a Bladelock using their pact weapon fairly trivially. Just giving Bladelock that ability without having to dip in Fighter could shore up things a bit. Then it would just be a matter of letting Eldritch Smite trigger off the melee eldritch blast. Maybe toss in Lifedrinker as Prof bonus to melee damage as a reward for being in melee as a guy with no armor.

I'm personally not a huge fan of Hexblade. I feel like a better solution to Bladelock being iffy would be to fix Bladelock, not patch it with a Patron option that pigeon-hole them. It reminds me of how Wizards 'fixed' martial classes with the Book of Nine Swords back in 3.5

[RSP]

I'm personally not a huge fan of Hexblade. I feel like a better solution to Bladelock being iffy would be to fix Bladelock, not patch it with a Patron option that pigeon-hole them. It reminds me of how Wizards 'fixed' martial classes with the Book of Nine Swords back in 3.5

Hexblade clearly helps the Bladelock, but it's not exactly useless on other Pacts. Chr for melee attacks helps any Warlock in a jam (particularly with SCAG Cantrips available), and the Hexblade's Curse features work just as well on EB as it does on melee attacks. The 6th ability is more geared towards ranged with removing cover benefits, and the 10th and 14th are both great for any character.

I was actually just thinking of a Hexblade EB build that takes Pact of Chain. I really don't see any reason why it wouldn't work.

[Rebonack]

Hexblade clearly helps the Bladelock, but it's not exactly useless on other Pacts. Chr for melee attacks helps any Warlock in a jam (particularly with SCAG Cantrips available), and the Hexblade's Curse features work just as well on EB as it does on melee attacks. The 6th ability is more geared towards ranged with removing cover benefits, and the 10th and 14th are both great for any character.

I was actually just thinking of a Hexblade EB build that takes Pact of Chain. I really don't see any reason why it wouldn't work.

Very true. In fact, getting medium armor prof is in and of itself pretty great. Medium armor with a shield and focus in the other hand makes for a solidly tanky Warlock. With the standard array and half-elf you're sitting on 16 Cha and Con with 14 Dex. But nothing about any of that requires you to be in melee. Hexblade makes for a more durable Warlock regardless of which Boon you pick. Being able to swat things in melee is nice, I guess?

Mostly I was talking about Hexblade being the only really compelling patron option for a Pact of the Blade Warlock that can't or won't multiclass. That just doesn't sit right with me. At the very least Medium Armor should come bundled with the Boon as it does with Valor Bards. If you don't do that, then the only other way to patch 'em up is with absolutely overwhelming damage. And that has its own problems.

[clash]

It think the correct fix for this is to instead have a curse pact which gives the benefit of hexblades curse

Add invocations for armor of hexes and master of hexes as appropriate.

then change the hexblade to something like this:
1 Hex Warrior:
Proficiency with medium armor shields and martial weapons and ability to manifest weapon as action. And use charisma for attack and damage.

6 Extra Attack

10: Thirsting Blade
You may instead add double your cha modifier to weapon attacks.

14: Eldritch Smite

By making the blade pact its own archetype it works as desired and the hex is fine as a pact boon for any archetype

[Zalabim]

The reason people talk about invocation taxes is because blade pact doesn't bring a fully functioning blade with it. Contrast not with Valor Bard, but with the other pacts.

Chain is a fully functioning familiar superior to a normal familiar, and there are invocations to enhance it.

Tome is a fully functioning ritual caster superior to a normal ritual caster, and there are invocations to enhance it.
Already mentioned, but ritual casting requires an invocation. I do agree that that the blade pact's features lag behind to begin with. The tome is an improved version of the cantrips from magic initiate, with an invocation for an improved version of Ritual Caster. The familiar is an improved version of the first level spell from magic initiate, with fun invocation options. The weapon is a limited version of the weapon proficiency from Weapon Master along with all the benefits you could already get from knowing Eldritch Blast, with two invocations to remind you that you could just be using eldritch blast. And at level 17 you maybe should anyway.


That's the difference. And that's why blade pact warlocks are never as versatile as others warlocks. They give up two invocations to get full benefit of their pact. The invocations, rather than enhancing blade pact, merely keep it competitive for damage. Compare with the Moon Bow invocation from UA, which allows Blade locks to use a bow with unlimited arrows and grants them a smite option. That adds meaningful capabilities. The PHB blade invocations don't. They aren't a choice, they're required if you want to continue being a functional Gish.
That given, I can't agree with this view. 2 Invocations feels just right for a fully functional melee weapon. (If only those two invocations actually gave a fully functional melee weapon.) The first so it can replace Agonizing Blast, and a second one to get the most value from your pact boon. Any invocations related to the pact beyond that should be thematically linked but clearly mechanically optional. The place I think it's best to put fixes is by improving the boon and the existing Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker. The bladelock does damage well enough up to level 10 with Thirsting Blade, so it just needs other benefits early and a reason to keep using the weapon after level 11/17, either better damage scaling or some other benefit for choosing to swing it around.

You can give armor proficiency to a gish, see Valor Bard, but I don't think giving armor proficiency to this gish is the way to go. The warlock's spell progression means they need a solid at-will option more than a bard does, and benefits for defense balance at the expense of benefits for offense. Having Eldritch Blast to consider, like an elephant sleeping on your couch, just adding armor wouldn't encourage use of the blade, or make it feel like a blade pact, instead of an armor or shield pact. The class already has a lot of defensive options through their spells and invocations and even patron benefits. If they aren't using magic for their offense, they should be using their magic for defense. There's a balance between the two.

These things have been discussed extensively in the past, and the above is the overall consensus we reached back then. Feel free to disagree, but you're disagreeing with a lot more people than just me.
This kind of outburst just makes me want to wash my hands of warlock-fix threads, since the consensus is so far wrong.

[Rebonack]

Now here's a though, what if the Hexblade's curse were simply an invocation for Bladelocks to pick up? Make some tweaks and combine that with the melee Eldritch Blast concept-

Pact of the Blade now grants:
-Pact weapon as per vanilla.
-While wielding your pact weapon you may cast Eldritch Blast as a melee spell attack.
-Your melee spell attacks can be used in place of a weapon attack for opportunity attacks.

That gives a very real benefit to the Blade Pact user right from the gate. They can basically treat EB as if it were a melee weapon.

Then we add a new invocation, Hexblade.

As a bonus action you may curse a hostile creature within thirty feet of you for one minute. You gain several benefits when fighting cursed foes.
-Your melee spell attacks critically strike on a 19 or 20.
-Your melee spell attacks deal 1d4 bonus damage on a hit (increasing to 1d6 at Warlock level 5, 1d8 at Warlock level 9, 1d10 at Warlock level 13, and 1d12 at Warlock level 17).

So no temporary hit points, but no rest limitations, either. I decided to swap from a flat damage bonus to dice for the simple reason that it synergizes better with the Bladelock's increased critical range and easy access to advantage. These factors keep damage competitive with a Tomelock and Chainlock. And since the curse doesn't require concentration, it allows the Bladelock access to those all-important concentration spells that help keep him alive due to the fact that light armor is terrible.