Quote from: RPGPundit;1016533Am I mistaken or did I see on G+ that there's some kind of special edition of this?

Alternate cover. Volo's Guide had one or more as well. And I believe the Taroka Deck had an alternate box as well.

Looks like its another Hydro74 piece. Same artist as did this for Dragon.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1014767Before hexblade, and if you didn't have something like a starting Dex of 20 or some other fancy trick up your sleeve, it was close to required to take a level in something with medium armor. But a two level delay for warlock makes you even less of a spellcaster and more of a melee+ranged+a few tricks kinda gish character.

No, what you needed to was accept that the Pact didn't turn you into the main character from Devil May Cry. The mistake people made was taking Pact of the Blade, not taking Eldritch Blast, then getting smeared by monsters. You're trading a bit of power for versatility with this pact, not radically reshaping the class. The new Hexblade patron seems to be designed to allow people to play the kind of character they thought the Pact was for.

I'd call that different ways of saying the same thing. Devoting an archetype to melee prowress doesn't (and shouldn't) make a full spellcaster into a wholey competent martial character. If you throw some fighter onto it, it naturally would come closer, at the expense of delaying your spell progression.

I agree, the hexblade makes it more what people thought the bladelock would be. I dislike the sub-class, but only for what it does to Multiclassing. As a straight hexblade bladelock, it's a fine Devil May Cry/Jedi/whatever. I suspect most people will tire of it relatively quickly.

I hate Warlocks for multiclassing, period. Eldritch Blast should never have been a cantrip; it should have been a class feature that scaled with class level. Oh, a sorcerer/bard with two levels of warlock? That's a fresh idea. Say, why did your bard make a pact with Satan, anyway? Oh, what's that, you never even thought about why, some time around level 5, he decided that demons are cool? Neat, this should be a great game.

The rudimentary concept of the warlock is sound, and was well overdue when it was brought into being. Ever since I started playing, there has been a sub-segment of players that wanted to play a "wizard," but not have the complexity of a vancian, plan your spells out at the beginning of the day, spellbook hunting, D&D-style magic user. "I just want to play a character who blasts people with arcane power instead of stabs them with swords" and all that. I get it. As a fighter-centric player, that's the kind of "wizard" I'd want to play too. And frankly, probably more like the magic user was originally intended, as lightning bolts and fireballs were ways to reuse the artillery rules and so on.

But the implementation, along with the whole "pact maker" fluff (which, I also get, but don't understand why that can't just be an alternative cleric model), has just been problematic in each edition.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016775Say, why did your bard make a pact with Satan, anyway? Oh, what's that, you never even thought about why, some time around level 5, he decided that demons are cool? Neat, this should be a great game.

It worked for Ozzy, right?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1016780The rudimentary concept of the warlock is sound, and was well overdue when it was brought into being. Ever since I started playing, there has been a sub-segment of players that wanted to play a "wizard," but not have the complexity of a vancian, plan your spells out at the beginning of the day, spellbook hunting, D&D-style magic user. "I just want to play a character who blasts people with arcane power instead of stabs them with swords" and all that. I get it. As a fighter-centric player, that's the kind of "wizard" I'd want to play too. And frankly, probably more like the magic user was originally intended, as lightning bolts and fireballs were ways to reuse the artillery rules and so on.

But the implementation, along with the whole "pact maker" fluff (which, I also get, but don't understand why that can't just be an alternative cleric model), has just been problematic in each edition.

I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016831I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

I just made a warlock (archfey) and picked eldritch blast. Didn't even think about this (only picked it because it didn't have material component), then again I'm new to 5th Edition and there won't be any multiclassing (house rule is only humans, no multiclass and no feats, all 'long rest' abilities/spells can be restored only once per week)

We also start out as slaves and I might die quite soon anyway, as I believe my questions about the setting/backgrounds (no normal backgrounds, only some cultural ones) and rules made people angry at me. (The GM basically answered my last PM with 'TLDR') At least I made sure to pick no material component spells, except for one (Comprehend Languages) and the char concept was a fallen noble/merchant anyway, thus I focused on non-combat abilities.

Warlock sure seems to have good options with that list of Eldritch Invocations as I read more about it. Those abilities and powers might make a spell caster a good, valid option even with the house rules, some grant skill proficiency or at-will free spells. Although I have to survive and become level 2 for them first.

Eldritch Blast is perfectly fine for warlocks. Lemme put it this way, though. Every cantrip scales with character level.  So if you do a gish with two levels of wizard and grab Fire Bolt, you'll eventually do 4d10 damage with it. By contrast, weapon attacks scale with class level. If you only take two levels of Fighter, you're stuck at one attack and your fighting style. What makes this not really a balance issue is a standard cantrip does less than half of what any warrior class is going to be doing at high level. A bog standard sword-and-board Duelist Fighter will peak out at 4x(d8+7+[magic]) damage.

The exception is Eldritch Blast. 2nd level of warlock gets invocations, so pick up Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast, and now you've got a cantrip that is more that twice as powerful as the standard---i.e. about what a full-classed warrior does, for the low low cost of just two levels in Warlock. That's why I said they should have made EB a class feature rather than a cantrip.

I had a single warlock previously, either in 3.5 or Pathfinder, never touched 4th Edition more than necessary and for a broken game session for a new GM who wanted 4E (and a single battle was too damn long with it), but as far I recall in previous editions Eldritch Blast was indeed a class feature, no?

Yeah, EB was a class feature in 3.5 (4e classes don't map onto 5e at all). Basically I think that if you want to do 2x(1d10+CHA+HEX) damage, you should have to take five levels in Warlock, not 2 levels in Warlock and 3 in whatever you want.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016831I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

Simple fix, don't use the optional multi-class rules.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016831I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

What's wrong with Fire Bolt?  Has the same range at 1st level and doesn't require a Wizard to put points into Charisma for it to be decent at casting at it.  A Sorcerer is built on Charisma, so that's a hit against that class, one among many I say.

Quote from: Voros;1016867Simple fix, don't use the optional multi-class rules.

Agreed 100%! Unless you want a game as broken as 3e, don't use multiclassing. There's a good reason Feats & Multiclassing are specifically called out as optional rules, check with your DM if they're in use. Sadly many players seem to ignore this. Personally I recommend strongly against allowing multiclassing. I did once let a Wizard take a level of Rogue for flavour reasons but it's important IMO not to allow multiclass-dependent 'builds', or you get 3e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016875What's wrong with Fire Bolt?  Has the same range at 1st level and doesn't require a Wizard to put points into Charisma for it to be decent at casting at it.  A Sorcerer is built on Charisma, so that's a hit against that class, one among many I say.

Firebolt: 1d10 per tier.
Eldritch Blast (typical Sorlock): 1d10+1d6+CHA+knockback per tier.

Like I said, the problem isn't with Warlocks per se, it's the way EB scales when you MC, making 2 levels in Warlock far too powerful compared to other MC options, and almost a must-have for sorcerers.

Quote from: Voros;1016867Simple fix, don't use the optional multi-class rules.

Not an option when I'm not the DM or in AL. AL is packed to the gills with Sorlocks. However, in my private games, I only allow two classes if you MC, and you can't MC Warlock. That said, it isn't game-ruining the way the worst of the 3.x hijinx could be. What it ends up being in practice was a squishier warlock with a great deal more freedom to spam spells, not an unstoppable godling. It's just annoying to me because nearly everyone does it once the sorc hits 5th level or so, and after that point, the Sorc just spams EB like a Warlock. If that's what you were going to do, why even bother with the Sorc class at all?