Talk:The Pactbreaker (5e Subclass)

I'm concerned about this subclass. For starters, the average of a d8 is 4.5, meaning 2d8 will deal an average of 9 damage. If you're a level 1 warlock, this means that approximately 60% of the time (accounting for CON mod ranging from +0 to +4), you just straight up go unconscious in exchange for one spell slot that you could've just sat down for thirty minutes to get back and probably make a cleric or druid waste a slot on getting you back up. And if you're the one warlock who pseudo-dumped CON for a +0? You can literally just outright die.

Secondly, the curses? They punish the players. Period. There's 1,000% no benefit to the first level feature that gives you a curse. It makes roleplay difficult, detriments combat, and makes the person playing this class a liability, which in turn makes the game less fun for the rest of the party. You don't get anything beneficial until 3rd level.

Archetypes are supposed to add cool, unique benefits to a base class and enhance the play. These features do neither of those things.

I'd have to agree with most of this. Even oathbreaker paladins(the parallel to this) only get beneficial features. Could use some tweaks, perhaps changing the 1st level feature to be a later addition, removing the penalty of the curse stuff. --SwankyPants (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2022 (MDT)

I think it's cool, if the class didn't go back to level 1 when breaking the pact and the curses were GM fiat instead of all the time (making them this subclass's version of letting the GM screw with the warlock), it'd work. It's pretty clearly not trying to follow 5e's design principles, so I'd prefer to make it playable instead of removing its mechanical identity. One another hand, the subclass is stretching what a warlock is so thin that it could just be deleted for being a paradoxical concept, like a cleric who doesn't worship a god. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by vladulenta (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.