# Monsters of the Multiverse: the death of eldritch blast?



## Remathilis

So I noticed something when browsing a copy of MMoM and the new NPC stat blocks: WotC has gone out of it's way to NOT give warlocks eldritch blast. 

I cross checked a few monsters built in being warlock-based (the three npc warlocks, deathloks and xvart warlock) all of them had EB in their cantrip list. Yet none of them do now. Nor has EB moved to the actions list, they just don't have it. Further, they don't have a ranged spell attack at all: they have melee attacks (rapier, scimitar, dagger or claw) and an AoE effect (sometimes) but no ranged spell attack akin to EB, fire bolt, or chill touch. If they didn't want to use EB specifically, they could have given them a close substitute (evil beam or something) but none of them have anything close.

That's got me thinking about how they may look at warlocks in AE.

Granted, it's a stretch to assume anything based on NPC stats, especially when NPCs are drifting further away from PCs in design, but it struck me as odd that warlocks are you quintessential blaster class, with a melee/hexblade build being the minority. Due to how invocations interact with EB, the cantrip is a must have and all other ones are suboptimal. It's a good guess EB would be revisited in AE, but is it possible they might get rid of it entirely? To free up more builds than EB sniper and hexblade melee builds, they might just remove EB and work on giving them more spell options? As I said, it's wild speculation, but would people be interested in seeing a warlock not married so much to EB as a defining feature?


----------



## Jer

This suggests to me that this is part of their focusing more on communicating the intent of the creature so that it fights at its challenge level. If a creature was built to be a melee monster but it has a ranged spell listed as one of its attacks that adds to confusion leading to a trap choice for the DM.

Do you notice it with other spellcasting monsters or specifically just the warlock (though I guess that doesn't mean a whole lot because if I'm thinking of spellcasters who are tuned for melee the warlock is the only one I'd really think of).  Also does the Deathlock Mastermind still have their Grave Bolt or did they remove that as well?


----------



## HammerMan

that is BOTH cool and freighting. 

Eldritch blast does not need to be the only cantrip to build around... I made a warlock with toll the dead and green flame blade, then took Magic adept druid (I was a fey lock so it made sense) to pick up shielighly and guidance (and cure wounds). the DM was supper nice and gave me a mystic gift early on that let me learn more druid spells... but really I never needed eldritch blast.  However that is building AROUND not going the obvious rote. 

Eldritch blast IS the easies spam "just do this" attack


----------



## Remathilis

Jer said:


> This suggests to me that this is part of their focusing more on communicating the intent of the creature so that it fights at its challenge level. If a creature was built to be a melee monster but it has a ranged spell listed as one of its attacks that adds to confusion leading to a trap choice for the DM.
> 
> Do you notice it with other spellcasting monsters or specifically just the warlock (though I guess that doesn't mean a whole lot because if I'm thinking of spellcasters who are tuned for melee the warlock is the only one I'd really think of). Also does the Deathlock Mastermind still have their Grave Bolt or did they remove that as well?



I looked again and Deathloks still have grave bolt, so I guess there is the one that did. 

The wizard NPCs all have Arcane burst, which is a d10 based ranged or melee attack that does damage type based on the wizard (force, necrotic, psychic) I expected something like that for warlocks. The changes certainly seem to make warlocks more of a melee caster rather than a ranged one. I can't help but feel that's intentional.


----------



## Yaarel

Maybe force damage associates more with psionic telekinesis?

Maybe the Hexblade melee focus is more characteristic of the whole Warlock class, making the Warlock moreso a gish?

Among the NPC Warlocks, they are missing the Eldritch Blast cantrip. But what do all monster statblocks share in common?


----------



## jayoungr

What's AE?


----------



## Vaalingrade

The NPClock is just going to exist for about 4-5 rounds. Better to resist the temptation for the DM to do like PC warlocks and just EB forever and instead fire the big guns to maximize excitement in the fight.


----------



## Yaarel

jayoungr said:


> What's AE?



50e

The anticipated "50th anniversary edition" in 2024. It will probably have tweaks here and there, deriving from the 10 years of playing 5e.


----------



## Remathilis

jayoungr said:


> What's AE?



Anniversary edition, or 5.5, or whatever comes out in 2024.


----------



## Jer

Remathilis said:


> The wizard NPCs all have Arcane burst, which is a d10 based ranged or melee attack that does damage type based on the wizard (force, necrotic, psychic) I expected something like that for warlocks. The changes certainly seem to make warlocks more of a melee caster rather than a ranged one. I can't help but feel that's intentional.



I suspect it is intentional but it's hard to tell if its intentional because they're thinking of the warlock in general as a melee class or if it's because when they're building monsters if you're building a ranged spellcaster you have a choice of character classes to model off of but if you are building a melee spellcaster your choices are more restrictive.

IIRC the original purpose of the warlock in 3e was to have a simpler spellcaster with an at-will attack they could use without expending. They don't really fill that role anymore and haven't for a while because all of the spellcasters have at-will attacks - if you're looking for an arcane melee class warlock has always been the one they've dabbled with.


----------



## Remathilis

Vaalingrade said:


> The NPClock is just going to exist for about 4-5 rounds. Better to resist the temptation for the DM to do like PC warlocks and just EB forever and instead fire the big guns to maximize excitement in the fight.



I'm just surprised that their primary attacks clearly went to melee attacks (with riders like extra poison damage) rather than clearly simulate EB which is a signature ability for locks. They went from artillery/snipers to skirmisher roles in combat with PCs. I have to imagine that is intentional, as none of the Strixhaven warlocks had it either.


----------



## Yaarel

One of the things designers have complained about is, the Warlock has too many moving parts.

There might be a fusion making the choice of Patron and Boon the same choice.

Here, perhaps the Eldritch Blast relocates to a specific patron?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> One of the things designers have complained about is, the Warlock has too many moving parts.



They need to stop and move away from the warlock Right. Now.

The game has too few moving parts for PCs to start.


----------



## Remathilis

Jer said:


> I suspect it is intentional but it's hard to tell if its intentional because they're thinking of the warlock in general as a melee class or if it's because when they're building monsters if you're building a ranged spellcaster you have a choice of character classes to model off of but if you are building a melee spellcaster your choices are more restrictive.
> 
> IIRC the original purpose of the warlock in 3e was to have a simpler spellcaster with an at-will attack they could use without expending. They don't really fill that role anymore and haven't for a while because all of the spellcasters have at-will attacks - if you're looking for an arcane melee class warlock has always been the one they've dabbled with.



Which leads to my broader speculation: could warlocks be repositioned into the melee/gish role as a PC class as well? Or even just having the EB focused invocations changed to affect other spells and melee attacks?


----------



## Shardstone

Warlock could be the new Gish class.

Edit: beat me to the punch!


----------



## Vaalingrade

Evocations on other abilities would be AMAZING.


----------



## Laurefindel

Remathilis said:


> So I noticed something when browsing a copy of MMoM and the new NPC stat blocks: WotC has gone out of it's way to NOT give warlocks eldritch blast.
> 
> I cross checked a few monsters built in being warlock-based (the three npc warlocks, deathloks and xvart warlock) all of them had EB in their cantrip list. Yet none of them do now. Nor has EB moved to the actions list, they just don't have it. Further, they don't have a ranged spell attack at all: they have melee attacks (rapier, scimitar, dagger or claw) and an AoE effect (sometimes) but no ranged spell attack akin to EB, fire bolt, or chill touch. If they didn't want to use EB specifically, they could have given them a close substitute (evil beam or something) but none of them have anything close.
> 
> That's got me thinking about how they may look at warlocks in AE.
> 
> Granted, it's a stretch to assume anything based on NPC stats, especially when NPCs are drifting further away from PCs in design, but it struck me as odd that warlocks are you quintessential blaster class, with a melee/hexblade build being the minority. Due to how invocations interact with EB, the cantrip is a must have and all other ones are suboptimal. It's a good guess EB would be revisited in AE, but is it possible they might get rid of it entirely? To free up more builds than EB sniper and hexblade melee builds, they might just remove EB and work on giving them more spell options? As I said, it's wild speculation, but would people be interested in seeing a warlock not married so much to EB as a defining feature?



intriguing indeed... Unlikely to be an unintentional omission.


----------



## Marandahir

They explore the rationale for this in this recent video. The point is to make the monster stat blocks fun and easier to run for the DM. It's not to say Eldritch Blast is going away.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yaarel said:


> One of the things designers have complained about is, the Warlock has too many moving parts.
> 
> There might be a fusion making the choice of Patron and Boon the same choice.
> 
> Here, perhaps the Eldritch Blast relocates to a specific patron?



_pain_

The warlock is the one class which I consider to have enough customisation and uniqueness. The fact that subclass, pacts, and invocations are all different means that you can build warlocks in all sorts of crazy ways, rather than as the cookiecutter characters encouraged by certain other classes.

Just something which makes me even more convinced that 5.5e will be DnD: Babies Edition.


----------



## Remathilis

Marandahir said:


> They explore the rationale for this in this recent video. The point is to make the monster stat blocks fun and easier to run for the DM. It's not to say Eldritch Blast is going away.



I don't find a Xd10 force attack at 120 ft range to be complicated. Certainly, it's not for wizard analogs. Add it to the actions list and be done.


----------



## Marandahir

Remathilis said:


> I don't find a Xd10 force attack at 120 ft range to be complicated. Certainly, it's not for wizard analogs. Add it to the actions list and be done.



I think the point was that they wanted to distinguish the Warlock monster variants so they're not all just blasting Eldritch Blast every round but instead are interesting and distinct from each other. They wanted to make it easier for the DM to pick the most interesting option and not the default "the warlock blasts you again."


----------



## Yaarel

Frozen_Heart said:


> _pain_
> 
> The warlock is the one class which I consider to have enough customisation and uniqueness. The fact that subclass, pacts, and invocations are all different means that you can build warlocks in all sorts of crazy ways, rather than as the cookiecutter characters encouraged by certain other classes.
> 
> Just something which makes me even more convinced that 5.5e will be DnD: Babies Edition.



If almost every Warlock is either an Eldritch Blast-er or a Hexblade, that in itself feels defacto cookie-cutter?


----------



## Paul Farquhar

It's an interesting observation. My guess would be that in the 2024 PHB short rests will be dropped, so the warlock class will get a complete rework.


----------



## Marandahir

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's an interesting observation. My guess would be that in the 2024 PHB short rests will be dropped, so the warlock class will get a complete rework.



That's a curious idea. 

I guess based on the fact that a lot of per-short-rest mechanics have been revised in recent books to proficiency-bonus-(sometimes+Key-Mod)-times-per-day?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yaarel said:


> If almost every Warlock is either an Eldritch Blast-er or a Hexblade, that in itself feels defacto cookie-cutter?



That won't be solved by getting rid of the pact boon/invocation complexity. You will simply be an eldritch blast machine with less options (even if most of those options were always pretty sub par).

A better way to solve it would be maybe opening up the variety of cantrips which work with warlocks class features, so you can change the effects you're having round to round. Or maybe make the eldritch blast way more customisable, where you can switch up its effects between a blast, lots of small beams, a cone, a line, and a melee spell attack. With different status effects and damage types you can apply to it.

I like warlock being a cantrip monster. But it should be more than one cantrip option. Also imo if something is 'essential' for a class, it should be a default class feature. Like agonising blast is basically a must have. Well make it a base feature, and make it apply to all cantrips with damage roles. Suddenly your warlock has a lot more choice of what they can do.


----------



## Weiley31

I mean, I'm just adding Eldritch Blast (plus the Agonizing Blast Invocation) back to the Warlock Monster Stat blocks. Just like how I'm giving Orcus his Chill Touch back so he can just screw with people's healing/make an undead PC's life more "interesting" when need to.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Frozen_Heart said:


> Or maybe make the eldritch blast way more customisable, where you can switch up its effects between a blast, lots of small beams, a cone, a line, and a melee spell attack. With different status effects and damage types you can apply to it.



That was how the original 3.5 warlock worked!


----------



## Yaarel

Whatever happens,

I hope 50e makes every class gain subclasses features at level 1.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Marandahir said:


> That's a curious idea.
> 
> I guess based on the fact that a lot of per-short-rest mechanics have been revised in recent books to proficiency-bonus-(sometimes+Key-Mod)-times-per-day?



Yeah, none of the recent stuff has made any use of short rest mechanics. A rework wouldn't hurt monk either.


----------



## dave2008

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's an interesting observation. My guess would be that in the 2024 PHB short rests will be dropped, so the warlock class will get a complete rework.



That is my thought as well. Not sure how I feel about that, but as the DM I guess it doesn't bother me to much one way or the other!


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Whatever happens,
> 
> I hope 50e makes every class gain subclasses features at level 1.



I want them at the same time, but not at level 1.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

How balanced would it be if agonising blast applied to all damage cantrips? Would it make anything other than eb spam an option?


----------



## Zaukrie

I'd get rid of short rests and make all those things recharge differently. Lose the short rest for fiction sake! (though, really, resting does make sense fictionally, so I'm good either way).

As for the warlock......it is so efficient to build one of two types (from what I read and my limited experience) that the class might need some changes if variety is a goal. Or, maybe, have a lot more classes that are more tightly focused. (not gonna happen)


----------



## Yaarel

dave2008 said:


> I want them at the same time, but not at level 1.



It is hard to be a Warlock without making a pact at level 1, including its pact features.

How can one be a Cleric at level 1, without having decided which sacred tradition one adheres to?

It is hard to have grown up in an Eldritch Knight military academy, unless having spellcasting at level 1.

And so on. For too many archetypes, it works best when it is also part of the backstory, and available at level 1.


----------



## Remathilis

Frozen_Heart said:


> How balanced would it be if agonising blast applied to all damage cantrips? Would it make anything other than eb spam an option?



I don't wager much, since clerics can do so depending on the subclass and evokers can do half-damage on a save. EB is still the best option with way since it applies per blast and most attack cantrips are only one attack. Your better off with two 1d10+Cha mod attacks vs one 2d10+Cha mod attack.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> It is hard to be a Warlock without making a pact at level 1, including its pact features.



If we are thinking AE redesigns the Warlock, then this can be addressed, IMO.


Yaarel said:


> How can one be a Cleric at level 1, without having decided which sacred tradition one adheres to?



Seems to me that these things take time.  I went through 3 majors over 2 years in college before finding Architecture.  I think becoming a cleric can be similar.


Yaarel said:


> It is hard to have grown up in an Eldritch Knight military academy, unless having spellcasting at level 1.
> 
> And so on. For too many archetypes, it works best when it is also part of the backstory, and available at level 1.



I just prefer to spread out class, and thus subclass, features.  To grow into the class. I am less interested in backstory and more interested in the character's current story.


----------



## Yaarel

Frozen_Heart said:


> How balanced would it be if agonising blast applied to all damage cantrips? Would it make anything other than eb spam an option?



Eldritch Blast is the best damage cantrip (most damage, least resistance). So it seems fine if the Warlock can beef up other damage cantrips as well.


----------



## Umbran

Frozen_Heart said:


> Just something which makes me even more convinced that 5.5e will be DnD: Babies Edition.




*Mod Note:*
So, perhaps the #1 reason why threads go wrong is people eliding from critique about a game design they don't like, to making statements about the _players_ of games they don't like.  You don't like reduced customization options, and the people who do are babies.

I don't know where you got the idea that insulting players in this way is acceptable.  It isn't.  This comes off as trollish, and folks should be better than that.

Moreover, given how much D&D players have been the victim of this stuff from non-players over the years, you (and all of us) should know better.

So, in the future... just don't.  Feel free to critique design.  Leave the players out of it. 

(Edited to improve my phrasing.)


----------



## Remathilis

Marandahir said:


> I think the point was that they wanted to distinguish the Warlock monster variants so they're not all just blasting Eldritch Blast every round but instead are interesting and distinct from each other. They wanted to make it easier for the DM to pick the most interesting option and not the default "the warlock blasts you again."



All things being equal, it's not much different than "the warlock hits you with his flaming scimitar three times" except it's done in melee and not at range. 

But I can't help but feel you might be right in that WotC wants to make warlocks more than spooky casters, and if short rests aren't going to be a design point anymore (jury's out in that), making warlocks the melee caster class does give it a unique niche.


----------



## Weiley31

I don't mind if the Warlock starts getting more a gish like approach. The Pact of the Blade(and its patch fix Hexblade) make your character more of a gish in "concept." The only thing that would make it more Gish would be giving it the Bladesinger's Extra Attack as a feature or Pact feature after a certain point.


----------



## Zaukrie

I'm not sure why making a pact with an entity would make you a gish nearly all the time.....if that is the direction. I'd think with a huge multiverse, making a pact would give a massive variety of powers and archetypes.


----------



## HammerMan

Vaalingrade said:


> They need to stop and move away from the warlock Right. Now.
> 
> The game has too few moving parts for PCs to start.



warlock is the best class (2 sub class choices 1 at level 1 and 1 at level 3) small selection of abilities known with (mostly) 2 uses per short rest to break up between them, and mini feats (invocations) that can add all sorts of little quirks... and at higher level to keep up (if a bit behind) with the big boys you can choose 1 ability every other level that is a big daily shenaagains


----------



## HammerMan

Frozen_Heart said:


> How balanced would it be if agonising blast applied to all damage cantrips? Would it make anything other than eb spam an option?



or just "choose 1 cantrip and add"


----------



## Yaarel

The Paladin has been the gish for a number of editions.

The 5e Warlock Hexblade is arguably the first successful arcane gish.

I can see 50e emphasizing that success.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yaarel said:


> The Paladin has been the gish for a number of editions.
> 
> The 5e Warlock Hexblade is arguably the first successful arcane gish.
> 
> I can see 50e emphasizing that success.



I'd argue that the 4e Swordmage was a far more successful and interesting arcane gish, all without forcing one particular theme on players.



Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> So, perhaps the #1 reason why threads go wrong is people eliding from critique about a game design they don't like, to making statements about the _players_ of games they don't like.  You don't like reduced customization options, and the people who do are babies.
> 
> I don't know where you got the idea that insulting players in this way is acceptable.  It isn't.  This is trollinsh nonsense, and you should be better than that.
> 
> Moreover, given how much D&D players have been the victim of this stuff from non-players over the years, you should know better.
> 
> So, in the future... just don't.  Feel free to critique design.  Leave the players out of it.



Sorry. I spoke out of frustration.


----------



## Yaarel

Frozen_Heart said:


> I'd argue that the 4e Swordmage was a far more successful and interesting arcane gish, all without forcing one particular theme on players.
> 
> 
> Sorry. I spoke out of frustration.



I am a fan of the 4e Swordmage too!


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> If almost every Warlock is either an Eldritch Blast-er or a Hexblade, that in itself feels defacto cookie-cutter?



Only if that is the only way to build one. If there are other options, less explored, thats fine. Removing choice and simplifying just because thats what the majority do because they either dont want to think about it, or its the most effective tactic available...doesnt mean other options need to be removed.

5e is basic enough as it is...


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> Only if that is the only way to build one. If there are other options, less explored, thats fine. Removing choice and simplifying just because thats what the majority do because they either dont want to think about it, or its the most effective tactic available...doesnt mean other options need to be removed.
> 
> 5e is basic enough as it is...



That is the challenge of elegant (efficient) design.

"As simple as possible ... but not simpler."

There is a kind of optimization between lumping and splitting.


----------



## Remathilis

Weiley31 said:


> I don't mind if the Warlock starts getting more a gish like approach. The Pact of the Blade(and its patch fix Hexblade) make your character more of a gish in "concept." The only thing that would make it more Gish would be giving it the Bladesinger's Extra Attack as a feature or Pact feature after a certain point.



It's already an invocation, so...


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> That is the challenge of elegant (efficient) design.
> 
> "As simple as possible ... but not simpler."



In many avenues, I would agree with you and this concept, in an RPG, I do not.


----------



## Yaarel

Scribe said:


> In many avenues, I would agree with you and this concept, in an RPG, I do not.



I would think especially in an RPG.

One needs to have most customization possible (splitting) with the least complexity possible (lumping).

Elegant design seems quintessential to RPGs.


----------



## Scribe

Yaarel said:


> I would think especially in an RPG.
> 
> One needs to have most customization possible (spitting) with the least complexity possible (lumping).
> 
> Elegant design seems quintessential to RPGs.



I dont believe 5e/Wizards can accomplish it. 

I get you, 100%, but yeah I dont see it happening.


----------



## Weiley31

Remathilis said:


> It's already an invocation, so...



What I mean is when I say the _Bladesinger's Extra Attack,_ is that you can replace one of the attacks with a Cantrip ala the Tasha's Errata of the subclass.

I honestly feel like all 5E gishes should pretty much gain that feature. The Bladesinger gets the honor of having it from the start while other Gish like classes have to level up and gain it from their features.


----------



## Remathilis

Weiley31 said:


> What I mean is when I say the _Bladesinger's Extra Attack,_ is that you can replace one of the attacks with a Cantrip ala the Tasha's Errata of the subclass.
> 
> I honestly feel like all 5E gishes should pretty much gain that feature. The Bladesinger gets the honor of having it from the start while other Gish like classes have to level up and gain it from their features.



Gotcha. Understood.


----------



## Vaalingrade

HammerMan said:


> warlock is the best class (2 sub class choices 1 at level 1 and 1 at level 3) small selection of abilities known with (mostly) 2 uses per short rest to break up between them, and mini feats (invocations) that can add all sorts of little quirks... and at higher level to keep up (if a bit behind) with the big boys you can choose 1 ability every other level that is a big daily shenaagains



I meant leave it alone and not take away anymore fun things. I just read it back and it looks like I want to abandon the warlock instead of deleting the wizard.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> If almost every Warlock is either an Eldritch Blast-er or a Hexblade, that in itself feels defacto cookie-cutter?



That’s players choosing to play cookie-cutter builds. The _class_ is incredibly flexible, it’s just that some players would rather default to a standard build than take advantage of its flexibility. Which is fine, the fact that that’s an option, while still having room to build more unusual stuff, is exactly the point of having so much build flexibility.


----------



## Li Shenron

Completely removing short rests from the game would sound like a historic defeat of both game design and the playtesting process to me.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Li Shenron said:


> Completely removing short rests from the game would sound like a historic defeat of both game design and the playtesting process to me.



Absolutely. 

I'm a big advocate of the death of the 'adventuring day' and moving to encounter-based design; minimizing or removing the 'game of attrition' aspect and the attachment to a 24-hour fantasy world day.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> That’s players choosing to play cookie-cutter builds. The _class_ is incredibly flexible, it’s just that some players would rather default to a standard build than take advantage of its flexibility. Which is fine, the fact that that’s an option, while still having room to build more unusual stuff, is exactly the point of having so much build flexibility.



The flexibility is kinda a trap though. There are couple of ways to build the character that are just flat out better than the alternatives, and not even by a little bit, but by a lot. I would prefer there was better internal balance, and other builds would actually be more competitive.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Vaalingrade said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I'm a big advocate of the death of the 'adventuring day' and moving to encounter-based design; minimizing or removing the 'game of attrition' aspect and the attachment to a 24-hour fantasy world day.



Some sort of attrition is needed, otherwise battles that do not have significant risk of character death are pointless.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Frozen_Heart said:


> How balanced would it be if agonising blast applied to all damage cantrips? Would it make anything other than eb spam an option?



It still wouldn't be balanced, as Eldritch Blast would remain the obviously best option. But it would be _more _balanced. It's one of my house rules.


----------



## Yaarel

@Vaalingrade and @Crimson Longinus

One option to deal with the adventuring day is to have two long rests per level. All rests count as short rests, and each player can choose which short rest to count as a long rest.


----------



## Zaukrie

Li Shenron said:


> Completely removing short rests from the game would sound like a historic defeat of both game design and the playtesting process to me.



There are a million things that don't survive from version to version, let alone within a version over time. That doesn't sound historic at all.....it is just evolution of what they want the game to be.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Yaarel said:


> One of the things designers have complained about is, the Warlock has too many moving parts.
> 
> There might be a fusion making the choice of Patron and Boon the same choice.
> 
> Here, perhaps the Eldritch Blast relocates to a specific patron?



I deconstructed the boons and folded them into invocations. So if you want to have a pact weapon _and_ a pet imp, you can.


----------



## Yaarel

Crimson Longinus said:


> I deconstructed the boons and folded them into invocations. So if you want to have a pact weapon _and_ a pet imp, you can.



That sounds elegant.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> The flexibility is kinda a trap though. There are couple of ways to build the character that are just flat out better than the alternatives, and not even by a little bit, but by a lot. I would prefer there was better internal balance, and other builds would actually be more competitive.



I disagree. I think EB spam is overrated. Like, it’s good, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not so significantly better than other builds as to make them obsolete.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Yaarel said:


> @Vaalingrade and @Crimson Longinus
> 
> One option to deal with the adventuring day is to have two long rests per level. All rests count as short rests, and each player can choose which short rest to count as a long rest.



You could do that, but seems way too game for my tastes. I've been just using gritty rests, seems to work fine.


----------



## Jer

Crimson Longinus said:


> Some sort of attrition is needed, otherwise battles that do not have significant risk of character death are pointless.



But there's also the point of view that battles that aren't a part of the story are pointless, and battles that are part of the story are always important even if there's no risk of death in them (death is not the only possible consequence after all).  If the story you're telling is survival horror dungeon crawling then attrition is needed to keep the players in that mindset, but if the story you're telling is about an ongoing gang war between factions in a city for its control, and the battles take place over the course of a week rather than hour by hour, attrition is a lot less important.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> I disagree. I think EB spam is overrated. Like, it’s good, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not so significantly better than other builds as to make them obsolete.



I don't think maths are on your side on this. Or if you disagree, I'd really like to see what you actually mean.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Jer said:


> But there's also the point of view that battles that aren't a part of the story are pointless, and battles that are part of the story are always important even if there's no risk of death in them (death is not the only possible consequence after all).  If the story you're telling is survival horror dungeon crawling then attrition is needed to keep the players in that mindset, but if the story you're telling is about an ongoing gang war between factions in a city for its control, and the battles take place over the course of a week rather than hour by hour, attrition is a lot less important.



Battles that have narrative stakes are obviously the best. But this sort of mass market casual game simply cannot be built with an assumption that this is the default approach. Because it won't be, not even remotely. Creating good narrative stakes is hard, throwing in some angry hobgoblins is easy.


----------



## Li Shenron

Zaukrie said:


> There are a million things that don't survive from version to version, let alone within a version over time. That doesn't sound historic at all.....it is just evolution of what they want the game to be.



Rewinding back 2 editions to when every limited resource refreshed only overnight is devolution, not evolution. 

Especially because the premise of having BOTH short and long rest AND the (admittedly underdeveloped) ideas of dialing their respective lengths was supposed to support more varied playstyles.


----------



## Jer

Crimson Longinus said:


> Battles that have narrative stakes are obviously the best. But this sort of mass market casual game simply cannot be built with an assumption that this is the default approach. Because it won't be, not even remotely. Creating good narrative stakes is hard, throwing in some angry hobgoblins is easy.



But if you're just throwing in some hobgoblins to fight there's a story reason for it isn't there?  If it's just a random battle with hobgoblins what's the point?  Unless, like I said, you're playing a dungeon crawl game where the attrition is the point - then the random battles are part of the story.  The story of a hardscrabble group of adventurers who are trying to survive a dungeon complex to gather treasure or fight some foe supports random battles and requires attrition as a motivating factor for taking decisions.  It may or may not be a very deep story, but dungeon survival is a great collaborative story that D&D supports well.

Once you get outside of that kind of survival story, the D&D attrition model makes a lot less sense to the game.  Which is where the arguments about the 5 minute workday come into play - adventurers in a survival story can't have a 5 minute workday, while adventures in other fantasy situations can often easily do so.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Jer said:


> But if you're just throwing in some hobgoblins to fight there's a story reason for it isn't there?  If it's just a random battle with hobgoblins what's the point?  Unless, like I said, you're playing a dungeon crawl game where the attrition is the point - then the random battles are part of the story.  The story of a hardscrabble group of adventurers who are trying to survive a dungeon complex to gather treasure or fight some foe supports random battles and requires attrition as a motivating factor for taking decisions.  It may or may not be a very deep story, but dungeon survival is a great collaborative story that D&D supports well.



Yes. And it is favoured way to play for a lot of people. So you can't get rid of it. 



Jer said:


> Once you get outside of that kind of survival story, the D&D attrition model makes a lot less sense to the game.  Which is where the arguments about the 5 minute workday come into play - adventurers in a survival story can't have a 5 minute workday, while adventures in other fantasy situations can often easily do so.



I don't really think answer to '5 minute work day' is 'no attrition at all.' Nor I really agree that somewhat more narrative focused games couldn't have any minor battles or attrition shouldn't matter at all.  A hero being wounded in an earlier scuffle, so that they're not in full strength for a pivotal battle seems like pretty normal narrative for increasing suspense and creating drama. 

It's really just is about pacing and scaling of things. I fully agree that the normal expected 'six fights per day' is utterly crazy, and completely unviable for anything besides non-stop dungeon crawls. Gritty rests might be a tad clumsy, but it is a decent starting point for altering the pacing.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> @Vaalingrade and @Crimson Longinus
> 
> One option to deal with the adventuring day is to have two long rests per level. All rests count as short rests, and each player can choose which short rest to count as a long rest.



That just makes the adventuring day worse because now you're used up character is just plain going to suck for long periods of time. My intention is to get rid of 'long rest' stuff as much as possible.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Some sort of attrition is needed, otherwise battles that do not have significant risk of character death are pointless.



I prefer to just have fun fights and find character death itself pointless in a game about building and playing a character you enjoy.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Vaalingrade said:


> I prefer to just have fun fights and find character death itself pointless in a game about building and playing a character you enjoy.



Seems like waste of time. Nothing is at stake. Just  say the characters won and move on.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> That just makes the adventuring day worse because now you're used up character is just plain going to suck for long periods of time. My intention is to get rid of 'long rest' stuff as much as possible.



Players are less likely to use up a valuable limited resource like two long rests per level, unless they really need it.

And if they waste it, there is no choice but to go thru the rest of the level with only short rests.

Also, with choosing when to count a short rest as long rest, for a deep restoration, it can happen during a busy dungeon crawl, if that is when the character really needs it.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Crimson Longinus said:


> Seems like waste of time. Nothing is at stake. Just  say the characters won and move on.



Not accepting that there are stakes other than death is a major problem n all mediums nowadays.

Sometimes, the methods and act is more important than the result.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Yaarel said:


> Players are less likely to use up a valuable limited resource like two long rests per level, unless they really need it.



I never enjoyed stuff like this. It's like the weapon that does 9999 damage Final Fantasy gives you on the first disc then makes you afraid to use so you never use it. So why even have it?


Yaarel said:


> And if they waste it, there is no choice but to go thru the rest of the level with only short rests.



Which is what I want to avoid by killing the adventuring day in the first place.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Vaalingrade said:


> Not accepting that there are stakes other than death is a major problem n all mediums nowadays.



Perhaps. But like I said earlier, narrative stakes are the best, but also difficult to create, and a casual mass market game like D&D cannot work as them as a default. 


Vaalingrade said:


> Sometimes, the methods and act is more important than the result.



So you're saying that you just like rolling the dice, even if they don't affect the outcome?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Crimson Longinus said:


> Perhaps. But like I said earlier, narrative stakes are the best, but also difficult to create, and a casual mass market game like D&D cannot work as them as a default.



Is it that it can't or that industry is too lazy and has trained the fanbase to expect it?


Crimson Longinus said:


> So you're saying that you just like rolling the dice, even if they don't affect the outcome?



I like rolling dice to do cool stuff. Character death is just a dumb thing that impedes this and prevents real stakes from materializing. How can you follow through with actual stakes if the character might be removed from the story at random at any time, leaving plot thread hanging uselessly in the wind?


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> I never enjoyed stuff like this. It's like the weapon that does 9999 damage Final Fantasy gives you on the first disc then makes you afraid to use so you never use it. So why even have it?



To be fair, the player gets two. So there is some freedom to use at least one of them.


----------



## Yaarel

Vaalingrade said:


> Character death is just a dumb thing that impedes this and prevents real stakes from materializing. How can you follow through with actual stakes if the character might be removed from the story at random at any time, leaving plot thread hanging uselessly in the wind?



I agree with this.

While death needs to be a real risk, it can get in the way of deeper stories.


----------



## Marandahir

Yaarel said:


> The Paladin has been the gish for a number of editions.
> 
> The 5e Warlock Hexblade is arguably the first successful arcane gish.
> 
> I can see 50e emphasizing that success.



4Essentials Hexblade was a very effective Gish and was able to do Pact blades of each different type of Pact - even more than one for some types, like we had both an Excalibur-esque Pact Blade for Hexblades with Archfey Pacts of the Lady of the White Well, and an Icy Rapier Pact Blade for Hexblades that made their Archfey Pact with the Prince of Frost. 

Hexblade in 5e is locked into the Gloom Pact / Shadowfell Pact "Frostmourne-Hungers" flavour by explicitely tying all Hexblades to the Shadowfell, and that was because it was an inelegant solution to Pact of the Blade being underpowered and not doing what people wanted it to do. I could see a 5.5e Warlock having Hexblade-type options built into Pact of the Blade, but each of the other three Pact Boons would have to be made much more robust as well to be comparable. 

Just for some background,. 4Essentials had Original Warlock, Binder, and Hexblade - each able to explore different Pacts. Binder had a bit of Tomelock's shtick in terms of being a more Intelligent, almost Wizardly warlock, but functionally was more like Pact of the Chains in terms of summoning and binding spirits. Original Warlock was trying to do multiple things too, so they merged Hexblade and Binder into the Original Warlock, and split the Binder up into two separate Pact Boons. Pact of the Talisman had no equivalent in 4e. 

I would be very upset if all Warlocks were now Hexblades. That isn't what people want out of a Warlock. I don't think that's happening. I also don't think they're turning Hexblade into a core class feature of the Warlock in 2024, since the Rules Expansion set is supposed to complement both the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules. They're not going to replace something from Xanathar's Guide with the new PHB.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Vaalingrade said:


> Is it that it can't or that industry is too lazy and has trained the fanbase to expect it?



It can't in a scale in which D&D operates. Would work for a more niche game that has different (and way smaller) playerbase. But course even though the narrative stakes cannot work as the default stakes in D&D, the DMG could still offer better advice on how to build them. 



Vaalingrade said:


> I like rolling dice to do cool stuff. Character death is just a dumb thing that impedes this and prevents real stakes from materializing. How can you follow through with actual stakes if the character might be removed from the story at random at any time, leaving plot thread hanging uselessly in the wind?


----------



## Nefermandias

Vaalingrade said:


> Is it that it can't or that industry is too lazy and has trained the fanbase to expect it?
> 
> I like rolling dice to do cool stuff. Character death is just a dumb thing that impedes this and prevents real stakes from materializing. How can you follow through with actual stakes if the character might be removed from the story at random at any time, leaving plot thread hanging uselessly in the wind?



Character death isn't dumb. I have a lot of fun murdering my player's characters and they have fun trying to survive my murderous adventures. It's just not for you and I'll admit it's not the base assumption for most modern D&D games.


----------



## Yaarel

Marandahir said:


> 4Essentials Hexblade was a very effective Gish and was able to do Pact blades of each different type of Pact - even more than one for some types, like we had both an Excalibur-esque Pact Blade for Hexblades with Archfey Pacts of the Lady of the White Well, and an Icy Rapier Pact Blade for Hexblades that made their Archfey Pact with the Prince of Frost.
> 
> Hexblade in 5e is locked into the Gloom Pact / Shadowfell Pact "Frostmourne-Hungers" flavour by explicitely tying all Hexblades to the Shadowfell, and that was because it was an inelegant solution to Pact of the Blade being underpowered and not doing what people wanted it to do. I could see a 5.5e Warlock having Hexblade-type options built into Pact of the Blade, but each of the other three Pact Boons would have to be made much more robust as well to be comparable.
> 
> Just for some background,. 4Essentials had Original Warlock, Binder, and Hexblade - each able to explore different Pacts. Binder had a bit of Tomelock's shtick in terms of being a more Intelligent, almost Wizardly warlock, but functionally was more like Pact of the Chains in terms of summoning and binding spirits. Original Warlock was trying to do multiple things too, so they merged Hexblade and Binder into the Original Warlock, and split the Binder up into two separate Pact Boons. Pact of the Talisman had no equivalent in 4e.
> 
> I would be very upset if all Warlocks were now Hexblades. That isn't what people want out of a Warlock. I don't think that's happening. I also don't think they're turning Hexblade into a core class feature of the Warlock in 2024, since the Rules Expansion set is supposed to complement both the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules. They're not going to replace something from Xanathar's Guide with the new PHB.




@Crimson Longinus changes all of the Pact Boons into Invocations instead. In this way, the Hexblade can be an Invocation too. And a Warlock of any Patron can choose the Hexblade, including a Fey Hexblade that has a more King Arthur vibe (who got his sword Excalibur from the Fey lady of the lake).


----------



## Marandahir

Crimson Longinus said:


> It can't in a scale in which D&D operates. Would work for a more niche game that has different (and way smaller) playerbase. But course even though the narrative stakes cannot work as the default stakes in D&D, the DMG could still offer better advice on how to build them.



Plus, no worries for Boromir's player: he rolled up a not-quite-identical brother character for the next adventure they ran, only he joined up with Frodo and Sam while Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli's players split off to do their own party.

And Gandalf's player suddenly got some free time again and got to rejoin Aragorn and crew, while they brought in another new friend to join Frodo's team as the Chaotic Neutral Rogue Sméagol.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't think maths are on your side on this. Or if you disagree, I'd really like to see what you actually mean.



I mean, Eldritch Blast is fine? It keeps up with baseline at-will DPR. It’s probably smart for most warlocks to take it as a backup attack. But you get a lot more mileage out of your non-cantrip spells anyway.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Crimson Longinus said:


> It can't in a scale in which D&D operates. Would work for a more niche game that has different (and way smaller) playerbase. But course even though the narrative stakes cannot work as the default stakes in D&D, the DMG could still offer better advice on how to build them.



D&D games are not novels. Boromir is killed for a narrative purpose, not because the dice were more important than the story.


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> Plus, no worries for Boromir's player: he rolled up a not-quite-identical brother character for the next adventure they ran, only he joined up with Frodo and Sam while Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli's players split off to do their own party.
> 
> And Gandalf's player suddenly got some free time again and got to rejoin Aragorn and crew, while they brought in another new friend to join Frodo's team as the Chaotic Neutral Rogue Sméagol.



Nah dude, Boromir’s player switched to Sméagol. That’s why they were both so disruptive, working against the party, trying to steal Frodo’s ring of invisibility. Faramir was an element of Boromir’s backstory that the DM spun off into an NPC to try and use to force the Frodo/Sam/Sméagol party back onto the rails.

Gandalf has always been the overpowered DMPC.


----------



## Marandahir

Yaarel said:


> @Crimson Longinus changes all of the Pact Boons into Invocations instead. In this way, the Hexblade can be an Invocation too. And a Warlock of any Patron can choose the Hexblade, including a Fey Hexblade that has a more King Arthur vibe (who got his sword Excalibur from the Fey lady of the lake).



That makes somewhat sense. I'd maybe add Invocation chains of a sort for Hexblade's beefier features to be locked behind higher levels and multiple invocation requirements.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, Eldritch Blast is fine? It keeps up with baseline at-will DPR. It’s probably smart for most warlocks to take it as a backup attack. But you get a lot more mileage out of your non-cantrip spells anyway.



The problem with EB is generally that it's pretty much the only good option.

I'm currently playing a bladelock and EB is still my best option.


----------



## Marandahir

Charlaquin said:


> Nah dude, Boromir’s player switched to Sméagol. That’s why they were both so disruptive, working against the party, trying to steal Frodo’s ring of invisibility. Faramir was an element of Boromir’s backstory that the DM spun off into an NPC to try and use to force the Frodo/Sam/Sméagol party back onto the rails.
> 
> Gandalf has always been the overpowered DMPC.



That's a better take, yeah.

My point wasn't to go one to one with LotR so much as to say that you can have a meaningful character death, and then roll up a new character and join the party again.

Or you can use a meaningful character death as an out when life gets you too busy. Ghim the Dwarf Fighter's heroic sacrifice at the end of _Record of Lodoss War: The Grey Witch_ (the first campaign set in the world; adapted into the first 8 episodes of the OVA) was actually just because Ghim's player said they had to stop playing and they wanted to go out like a badass. Later, you might rejoin - I think Greevus/Grievus the Dwarf Cleric from the 4th campaign (Spark's party) was the same player as Ghim in the first, but he hadn't played in either the Parn & Deedlit in Flaim campaign nor the Orson and Shiris and Parn campaign?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, Eldritch Blast is fine? It keeps up with baseline at-will DPR. It’s probably smart for most warlocks to take it as a backup attack. But you get a lot more mileage out of your non-cantrip spells anyway.



Sure. But Warlocks have less spells than there are rounds in typical combat. So you want an attack cantrip. And Eldritch Blas is so good, it makes other attack cantrips look like jokes. And as agonising blast is such a good investment, you take it too. That's all you really need. Though Hex is super good with it too.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Vaalingrade said:


> D&D games are not novels. Boromir is killed for a narrative purpose, not because the dice were more important than the story.



But that's how RPGs work. The dice create outcomes around which we build a story. If you don't want that, you should just forgo the game aspect and write a story.


----------



## Yaarel

Flavor creates a design dilemma.

On the one hand, flavor is so important for the enjoyment of a mechanical benefit.

But on the other hand, for the same reason, getting stuck with an unwanted flavor can impair the enjoyment of the benefit.

(Here, the question is whether the Hexblade needs to be gloomy.)

A solid solution is offer three vivid flavors, as examples, plus mention the DM might have a different flavor for it (depending on the setting that the DM is running). But then, it duplicates the amount of flavor design necessary for each significant mechanical feature.

Maybe two examples, plus DM choice as the third, is enough as a rule of thumb.



Personally as DM, if a player chooses the Hexblade Invocation, I want the player to cohere it with the overall character concept, in a narrative way.


----------



## Yaarel

Marandahir said:


> _Record of Lodoss War_



I havent seen that yet, and hope to bingewatch it some day.


----------



## Marandahir

Vaalingrade said:


> D&D games are not novels. Boromir is killed for a narrative purpose, not because the dice were more important than the story.



Tolkien didn't write the way most other novelists write. Yes, he plotted out rough sketches of where the story was going to take him, but Faramir for example was completely unexpected, emerging from the woods of Ithilien fully formed as he is in the final books.

Boromir wasn't originally planned to die. Tolkien envisioned the Breaking of the Fellowship relatively early on, but Boromir's death doesn't enter the story until literally as Tolkien is writing the Breaking of the Fellowship (which at the time included the Departure of Boromir; a split that only happened once it was decided that the story would be broken up into 3 volumes/6 books). Originally, Trotter (proto-Aragorn), Legolas, and Gimli were planned to head south to the Land of Ondor with Boromir after the split, while Merry and Pippin vanish and Frodo and Sam join up with Gollum on the way to Mordor. This sketch of the story as foreseen from Lothlorien took Frodo and Sam all the way to the Cracks of Doom, but completely dropped the rest of the Fellowship out of the picture upon the Breaking of the Fellowship. Tolkien had no idea that Boromir was going to die, he thought Trotter was going to go help Boromir defend Ondor.

Boromir's death occurs because in the first draft of the fight, Tolkien writes in the margins that this battle is inartistic.

For all intents and purposes, we can call Boromir's death a bad dice roll in Tolkien's brain as he put pen to paper.


----------



## Marandahir

Yaarel said:


> I havent seen that yet, and hope to bingewatch it some day.



Sorry if I spoiled you a bit then! eeech. It's a really good series, probably the best D&D-based cartoon out there (especially the OVA, though I find the TV series and manga and novels to be more politically-intrique-focused in a way that's a lot more Lord of the Rings and a lot less 80s Dungeons & Dragons, by virtue of having a lot more time to explore things).


----------



## Leatherhead

Remathilis said:


> I don't find a Xd10 force attack at 120 ft range to be complicated. Certainly, it's not for wizard analogs. Add it to the actions list and be done.



You aren't supposed to use _Eldritch Blast_ when the Monster has_ Fireball_ in it's stat block. 
Here is a better video that tells you what they were thinking:


----------



## Amrûnril

Charlaquin said:


> Faramir was an element of Boromir’s backstory that the DM spun off into an NPC to try and use to force the Frodo/Sam/Sméagol party back onto the rails.




Jacksonian slander! The real Faramir did nothing but support and counsel Sam and Frodo.


----------



## Remathilis

Leatherhead said:


> You aren't supposed to use _Eldritch Blast_ when the Monster has_ Fireball_ in it's stat block.
> Here is a better video that tells you what they were thinking:




Except none of them have fireball in their statblock either. The closest is the Warlock of the Fiend, who throws a 10 ft radius mini-fireball that does 3d10 fire and 2d10 necrotic. That, three scimitar attacks (which do 1d6 slash and 4d6 fire) a round, and hellish rebuke 3/day are his only attack abilities. 

Compare to his Volo version: feeblemind, finger of death, flame strike, scorching ray, stinking cloud, wall of fire, burning hands, hellish rebuke EB, firebolt, shocking grasp. He has OPTIONS. He has AOE, control spells, melee and ranged attack spells, and can nullify a character for good measure. He's a good boss monster, a great BBEG and giving him a few minions makes him a terrible force to behold. 

So he's gone from having a variety of abilities to shape and control the battlefield to "mini-fireball at range, melee attack if confronted, rebuke if hit". He's a three-trick pony and once you've seen his tricks, there isn't a lot else to do with him. 

I've watched all of the videos on MPMM and frankly, I'm still underwhelmed. This to me is a step back to 4e's "monster does 1-3 things max" style of design, and they aren't even giving me minions to compensate. Could stat blocks have used some trimming and abilities moved from spellcasting to actions? Yes. Did they have to utterly gut caster-monster options? Not like they did.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't think maths are on your side on this. Or if you disagree, I'd really like to see what you actually mean.



There are both some builds and some playstyles where EB is inessential. Mostly pact of the blade builds, or Celestial/Greenflame blade (+2d8 to weapon damage is seriously good and even +d8 Sacred flame isn't _that _bad) before level 11. Also low combat games where you normally go into combats with both spells ready, and don't get to use EB except in the mop-up.

Now _Hex_ is something I find utterly inessential and that is a lot less fun than a "real" spell.

And I'm looking forward to more variety in the warlock mainline cantrips.


----------



## Weiley31

Marandahir said:


> 4Essentials Hexblade was a very effective Gish and was able to do Pact blades of each different type of Pact - even more than one for some types, like we had both an Excalibur-esque Pact Blade for Hexblades with Archfey Pacts of the Lady of the White Well, and an Icy Rapier Pact Blade for Hexblades that made their Archfey Pact with the Prince of Frost.
> 
> Hexblade in 5e is locked into the Gloom Pact / Shadowfell Pact "Frostmourne-Hungers" flavour by explicitely tying all Hexblades to the Shadowfell, and that was because it was an inelegant solution to Pact of the Blade being underpowered and not doing what people wanted it to do. I could see a 5.5e Warlock having Hexblade-type options built into Pact of the Blade, but each of the other three Pact Boons would have to be made much more robust as well to be comparable.






Yaarel said:


> @Crimson Longinus changes all of the Pact Boons into Invocations instead. In this way, the Hexblade can be an Invocation too. And a Warlock of any Patron can choose the Hexblade, including a Fey Hexblade that has a more King Arthur vibe (who got his sword Excalibur from the Fey lady of the lake).



I mean, despite how 5E has handled the "fluff' for Hexblades, there is still nothing stopping you from flavoring your Hexblade from being any of the 4E warlock Hexblade pact options.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> The problem with EB is generally that it's pretty much the only good option.
> 
> I'm currently playing a bladelock and EB is still my best option.



It’s the best option for a damaging cantrip, sure. I just don’t think a damaging cantrip is  always the best option for your action. It’s good to have to fall back on when you don’t have something better to do with your turn. If your DM is sticking to the guidelines, you should reliably be able to cast one leveled spell per encounter and most encounters should last about 3 rounds, which means you’ll probably be eldritch blasting about 2/3 of the time. Is it worth using your first several invocations to buff your go-to at-will attack? Maybe. It’s certainly a viable option. I just think the idea that building around EB spam is some kind of first order optimal strategy for warlocks is overstating its utility.


----------



## Charlaquin

Neonchameleon said:


> There are both some builds and some playstyles where EB is inessential. Mostly pact of the blade builds, or Celestial/Greenflame blade (+2d8 to weapon damage is seriously good and even +d8 Sacred flame isn't _that _bad) before level 11. Also low combat games where you normally go into combats with both spells ready, and don't get to use EB except in the mop-up.
> 
> Now _Hex_ is something I find utterly inessential and that is a lot less fun than a "real" spell.
> 
> And I'm looking forward to more variety in the warlock mainline cantrips.



Hex I tend to assume to be part of the “cookie cutter EB spam” build. If we’re just talking about _using_ EB at all, I think it’s certainly the case that most (though not all) warlock builds should do that.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Come to think of it I missed my normal non-EB spammable attack. Silent Image from Misty Visions. With e.g. illusionary fog clouds it's entirely possible to have _far_ more of an effect on fights than you would just by doing hit point damage.



Weiley31 said:


> I mean, despite how 5E has handled the "fluff' for Hexblades, there is still nothing stopping you from flavoring your Hexblade from being any of the 4E warlock pact options.



Did you mean to write 4e pact options there? Although the Vestige Pact would be an interesting one to bring back.


----------



## Charlaquin

Amrûnril said:


> Jacksonian slander! The real Faramir did nothing but support and counsel Sam and Frodo



Right, so still an NPC drawn from Boromir’s backstory to help redirect the Frodo/Sam/Sméagol party. He just did it through support and counsel.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Charlaquin said:


> Hex I tend to assume to be part of the “cookie cutter EB spam” build. If we’re just talking about _using_ EB at all, I think it’s certainly the case that most (though not all) warlock builds should do that.



The obvious non-Hex eldritch blast build is Pact of the Chain with an upgraded sprite. Those poison/sleep arrows may only do 1hp but both poison and sleep are excellent uses of your bonus action.

The less obvious one is a Misty Visions illusionist build. Misty Visions is excellent - Silent Image at will is _amazing_ in the social pillar and very effective in the combat one. But both Silent Image and Hex are concentration spells so you shouldn't run both.


----------



## Charlaquin

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. But Warlocks have less spells than there are rounds in typical combat. So you want an attack cantrip. And Eldritch Blas is so good, it makes other attack cantrips look like jokes. And as agonising blast is such a good investment, you take it too. That's all you really need.



Sure, EB is the best attack cantrip for most warlock builds, and agonizing blast is well worth picking up. That’s a far cry from warlocks having only a few cookie cutter builds. That’s literally two choices from the build, you might as well say wizards are cookie cutter because everyone takes fireball and counterspell.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Though Hex is super good with it too.



Eh. Hex is ok. In the early game warlocks don’t have a lot of better options, and it can be solid on the rote EB spam build. But once you get like 3rd level spells there are usually better things to be using your limited spell slots on.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Charlaquin said:


> Eh. Hex is ok. In the early game warlocks don’t have a lot of better options, and it can be solid on the rote EB spam build. But once you get like 3rd level spells there are usually better things to be using your limited spell slots on.



Once you get third level spells the main reason to use Hex is because you can save the spell slot by casting it then having a short rest as it lasts 8 hours. But a commitment to this is pretty much a commitment to not use any other concentration spells or you just lose the hex. (Of course warlocks have spare spells known so you can leave both options open).


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> It’s the best option for a damaging cantrip, sure. I just don’t think a damaging cantrip is  always the best option for your action. It’s good to have to fall back on when you don’t have something better to do with your turn.



Like every turn.

I swiftly learned that Witch Bolt s a sucker's game, as was every other damage option that wasn't an invocation buffed EB.

I then just used my spells for outside combat stuff as all the combat options were a sad joke of a 'once per encounter' ability compared to punting fools 10ft with my sonic cannon every round in combat.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Vaalingrade said:


> Like every turn.
> 
> I swiftly learned that Witch Bolt s a sucker's game, as was every other damage option that wasn't an invocation buffed EB.
> 
> I then just used my spells for outside combat stuff as all the combat options were a sad joke of a 'once per encounter' ability compared to punting fools 10ft with my sonic cannon every round in combat.



Witch Bolt _is_ a sucker's game for a warlock. You know what isn't? Fireball or Hunger of Hadar. Or if you're only throwing first level spells around Arms of Hadar. I've seen all those spells end fights and destroy packs of foes in a way that Eldritch Blast simply doesn't because Eldritch Blast is single target.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> Like every turn.
> 
> I swiftly learned that Witch Bolt s a sucker's game, as was every other damage option that wasn't an invocation buffed EB.
> 
> I then just used my spells for outside combat stuff as all the combat options were a sad joke of a 'once per encounter' ability compared to punting fools 10ft with my sonic cannon every round in combat.



Well, Witch Bolt is just a terrible spell in general. No doubt the warlock’s spell selection at first level sucks, but it gets much better at later levels.


----------



## Charlaquin

Neonchameleon said:


> Witch Bolt _is_ a sucker's game for a warlock. You know what isn't? Fireball or Hunger of Hadar. Or if you're only throwing first level spells around Arms of Hadar. I've seen all those spells end fights and destroy packs of foes in a way that Eldritch Blast simply doesn't because Eldritch Blast is single target.



This person gets it!


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I would like them to move more towards the undead patron where there is a form the warlock can take.  I figure sloth should be the warlock's guiding principle:  


Why spend years practicing with a sword, when you can make a deal with a demon and get a fiend form that lets you use your charisma modifier in place of your strength modifier?
Not everyone is born graceful but make a deal with an archfey and you can get fey form and use your charisma modifier for your dex modifier.
Undead are tough, and if you make a deal, you can get temp hit points and advantage on saves to maintain concentration (plus be scary) with undead form.
If you were smart, you wouldn't make any deals with GOO's, but since you did, aberrant form gives you a couple of extra languages and telepathy.
Your new angel buddy is a pal, now you can assume celestial form, and you use your charisma modifier for your wisdom one (great benefit for passive perception) and they throw in some kind of cool angel healing touch to make the party's cleric jealous.

Invocations can make you more like your patrons, with things like wings, spikes growing out your body, brain-sucking tentacles coming out your mouth, or even a necrotic touch.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Li Shenron said:


> Completely removing short rests from the game would sound like a historic defeat of both game design and the playtesting process to me.



Sure. Popularity polls aren't a good way of making decisions, people don't want what they think they want. And the vast majority of current 5e players didn't take part in the playtest in any case.


----------



## JEB

Paul Farquhar said:


> Popularity polls aren't a good way of making decisions, people don't want what they think they want.



So just to be clear, if polling says "players want us to keep short rests in 5E", those 5E players don't actually want to keep short rests?


----------



## Paul Farquhar

JEB said:


> So just to be clear, if polling says "players want us to keep short rests in 5E", those 5E players don't actually want to keep short rests?



Since the majority of players don't respond to polls, polls can't tell you what a majority of players want.


----------



## HammerMan

Vaalingrade said:


> The problem with EB is generally that it's pretty much the only good option.
> 
> I'm currently playing a bladelock and EB is still my best option.



i mean the melee cantrips aren't bad... green flame blade hits multi targets, and booming blade can have some nice lock down... and even if it isn't as cool mechanicly I love the idea of shards of force shaped like my melee weapon for sword burst.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jer said:


> But if you're just throwing in some hobgoblins to fight there's a story reason for it isn't there?  If it's just a random battle with hobgoblins what's the point?  Unless, like I said, you're playing a dungeon crawl game where the attrition is the point - then the random battles are part of the story.  The story of a hardscrabble group of adventurers who are trying to survive a dungeon complex to gather treasure or fight some foe supports random battles and requires attrition as a motivating factor for taking decisions.  It may or may not be a very deep story, but dungeon survival is a great collaborative story that D&D supports well.
> 
> Once you get outside of that kind of survival story, the D&D attrition model makes a lot less sense to the game.  Which is where the arguments about the 5 minute workday come into play - adventurers in a survival story can't have a 5 minute workday, while adventures in other fantasy situations can often easily do so.



Well, the combat system of D&D, despite significant changes over the years, has always been designed to support that story (even 4th ed, in its own way).  I'm not sure it's even possible to change it in a way to make attrition less important while still allowing that play style, and if it is, it would feel like a very different game to me.  Maybe too different.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Vaalingrade said:


> That just makes the adventuring day worse because now you're used up character is just plain going to suck for long periods of time. My intention is to get rid of 'long rest' stuff as much as possible.
> 
> I prefer to just have fun fights and find character death itself pointless in a game about building and playing a character you enjoy.



See, this is a conflict between character and plot (with worldbuilding trying to get a word in, as usual).  Many of us feel that the story that forms out of the game is the goal, and playing a character you enjoy is still important, but secondary to that focus.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Vaalingrade said:


> Not accepting that there are stakes other than death is a major problem n all mediums nowadays.
> 
> Sometimes, the methods and act is more important than the result.



Illustrative point:  in the novel series The Wheel of Time (recently made into a TV show on Amazon), one of the issues people have with it, especially as it progresses, is the authors extreme reluctance to allow any character to actually die.  It stretches the sense of grounding any story needs, and hurts immersion if you know everyone 's going to make it out no matter what happens.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Yaarel said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> While death needs to be a real risk, it can get in the way of deeper stories.



If character death needs to be a real risk, how can it also be "just a dumb thing"?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Well, Witch Bolt is just a terrible spell in general. No doubt the warlock’s spell selection at first level sucks, but it gets much better at later levels.



Witch Bolt is my biggest spell dissapointment in the game.  I want to feel like Palpatine when I cast it, dammit!  Unlimited power my eye!


----------



## Vaalingrade

Micah Sweet said:


> Illustrative point:  in the novel series The Wheel of Time (recently made into a TV show on Amazon), one of the issues people have with it, especially as it progresses, is the authors extreme reluctance to allow any character to actually die.  It stretches the sense of grounding any story needs, and hurts immersion if you know everyone 's going to make it out no matter what happens.



Despite the fact that if someone you knew died at the rate the blood-hungry audience demands, they would need all the therapy.

Edit: And the fact that the series is *named after a cycle of resurrection.*


----------



## Micah Sweet

Vaalingrade said:


> Despite the fact that if someone you knew died at the rate the blood-hungry audience demands, they would need all the therapy.



It's a matter of degree.  It doesn't have to be Game of Thrones.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Illustrative point: in the novel series The Wheel of Time (recently made into a TV show on Amazon), one of the issues people have with it, especially as it progresses, is the authors extreme reluctance to allow any character to actually die. It stretches the sense of grounding any story needs, and hurts immersion if you know everyone 's going to make it out no matter what happens.



I don't think the price of failure should be death, but I don't think it should be off the table. 

Plenty of genre media has heroes that can't die: Superman, Batman, the Doctor, etc. They still have stakes and a sense of loss even if they don't die (or permanently die). But it only works if your PC has something to lose: friends, allies, families, people under their protection, etc. Superman might not be physically challenged by many, but Lois and Metropolis are. 

However, D&D isn't that kind of genre media. Thru aren't the defenders of a city, world, or galaxy. Some might be that kind of guardian, but they can be murderhobos with nothing they value except thier lives and their magical toys. Sometimes death is the only price.D&D could use a few more options between glory and death.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> I don't think the price of failure should be death, but I don't think it should be off the table.
> 
> Plenty of genre media has heroes that can't die: Superman, Batman, the Doctor, etc. They still have stakes and a sense of loss even if they don't die (or permanently die). But it only works if your PC has something to lose: friends, allies, families, people under their protection, etc. Superman might not be physically challenged by many, but Lois and Metropolis are.
> 
> However, D&D isn't that kind of genre media. Thru aren't the defenders of a city, world, or galaxy. Some might be that kind of guardian, but they can be murderhobos with nothing they value except thier lives and their magical toys. Sometimes death is the only price.D&D could use a few more options between glory and death.



I agree.  I just feel there are more than two options on that scale.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Vaalingrade said:


> Despite the fact that if someone you knew died at the rate the blood-hungry audience demands, they would need all the therapy.
> 
> Edit: And the fact that the series is *named after a cycle of resurrection.*



In order to resurrect, you have to die first.  And everywhere except D&D, there's a little time between those two things.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> If character death needs to be a real risk, how can it also be "just a dumb thing"?



If the players are overly worried about their character dying at any moment, they are less likely to invest in the lives of the characters, their ambitions, the world setting around them. Death makes the game shallow − videogamey.

There is almost a Maslows Heirarchy at work. The lack of safety prevents the characters from self-actualizing.



But I feel there is a balance. The game becomes more visceral to the players, if the threat of death is real, thus more fun. Run the narrative like a movie. There is a place for action scenes. But there also needs to be a place for safety, confidence, comradery, achievement, and celebration. Also curiosity and playfulness. And challenges that are easy when the characters can show off.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Micah Sweet said:


> It's a matter of degree.  It doesn't have to be Game of Thrones.



Audiences raised in a post-On Writing (the book that drastically hampered good modern writing because people don't understand genre and think everything a horror/thriller writer says can be applied to action adventure and sweet romance 1 for 1) world pretty much demand a death per book or season, usually occurring over the course of a month. Imagine if someone you knew (and cared enough to have some level of shock value to the audience because that's the point of character deaths at this point) died every single month.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I feel there is a hard balance with character death. If there is no risk of death, it's just dull and feels low stakes. The party ends up acting like they're invulnerable and thinking everything has no consequences. 

But if you go the other way and make life too fast and cheap, players can't get attached to their characters. Why write a backstory when they will be gone the next session?

Generally I prefer death's happening when they mean something. Such as when fighting an important bad guy. Rather than stepping on a random trap at lvl 2 and getting instigibbed.


----------



## Remathilis

Vaalingrade said:


> Imagine if someone you knew (and cared enough to have some level of shock value to the audience because that's the point of character deaths at this point) died every single month.




I think that's called "being in the military during active combat" which would be the closest thing in modern parlance to adventuring. 

Then again, I tend to see D&D closer to comic books; the only other major genre where death and resurrection is common. In a setting where death isn't the end, you just accept that.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Comics could also learn a thing or two about not pointlessly killing characters for no good reason other than 'shock'.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Remathilis said:


> I think that's called "being in the military during active combat" which would be the closest thing in modern parlance to adventuring.



Yep this. Adventuring isn't some peaceful and low risk recreational activity. Combat is dangerous, and that should be represented in game.

Irl soldiers in active warzones do lose people they know on a regular basis.


----------



## Remathilis

Vaalingrade said:


> Comics could also learn a thing or two about not pointlessly killing characters for no good reason other than 'shock'.



If only out of shock fatigue. Death in comics should be a threat, but killing Batman did the nth time knowing he'll be Batman again in a year is tiring. However, I'd also hate to return to silver-age Superdickery when stakes were nonexistent.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Vaalingrade said:


> Audiences raised in a post-On Writing (the book that drastically hampered good modern writing because people don't understand genre and think everything a horror/thriller writer says can be applied to action adventure and sweet romance 1 for 1) world pretty much demand a death per book or season, usually occurring over the course of a month. Imagine if someone you knew (and cared enough to have some level of shock value to the audience because that's the point of character deaths at this point) died every single month.



That would indeed suck, but to be fair, I'm in a far less dangerous profession, with far lower stakes.  Surely we can agree that adventurers live very different, far more violent lives than most other people?


----------



## Yaarel

As DM, I intentionally include encounters that are way too difficult (that require the players to flee or think outside the box) and that are way too easy. ... Heh, and sometimes these happen unintentionally.

The unevenness creates uncertainty about the amount of danger, and adds more verisimilitude. Meanwhile, some encounters actually are deadly, while other encounters are cakewalks where the characters can show off.


----------



## South by Southwest

For myself, I favor the same approach as Yaarel, but I also try to stay conscious of the party I'm in and what it is they're looking for. Different people prefer different things for different reasons, right? Some people are highly risk-averse in life and play D&D in part as a way of escaping that aversion, so for them death, danger, and surprises are great. Some people are highly risk-averse in life and play D&D much as they live life: risk-averse. For them, the _Tomb of Horrors_ is just a bad choice. Some people have seriously high-stress careers in life and play D&D as a way of escaping that, so for them a pressure cooker adventure might not be my best choice. Some have stressful lives and play D&D as a way of rehearsing all that stress and changing some of its outcomes to where they tackle and clobber their imaginary foes in a way they wish they could clobber certain co-workers. For them, combat-heavy adventures with lots of blood work great.

Naturally, only so much DM calibration to the party is possible when you've got six or seven players each with a very different personality, but usually when it's a bunch of longtime friends all around a table, there's some kind of temperamental consensus that I can find.


----------



## HammerMan

Vaalingrade said:


> Despite the fact that if someone you knew died at the rate the blood-hungry audience demands, they would need all the therapy.
> 
> Edit: And the fact that the series is *named after a cycle of resurrection.*



funny thing if you think about it... if you have a large ensemble cast of 20 main characters and 40 one off/supporting and you kill 1 every 3 episodes even if we say half of them come from the 40 support, how many episodes before you just run out of characters to kill? Do one big "red wedding" shocker were a few mains AND a couple supporting all die in one go and that alone could end a show.


----------

