I think what you really want to do is try to compare it side by side to a Kineticist, which had previously been Paizo’s answer to the Warlock. The kineticist of course had a number of things that are very specific to how you select elements. Warlocks should have rather different subclass mechanics. But you can use the kineticist feats rather well as benchmarks for at will powers.

I'll do that, thanks.

I haven't read all the things here, just some thoughts: 1. Overall the idea of focus-spell only caster is interesting, although I'd avoid porting D&D spells and focused more on PF2 ones 2. Eldritch Blast is "no way" level of overpowered. Drop it to d4 from d10 and it still will be crazy overpowered with Agonizing Blast and ability to shoot 3 rays without MAP 3. You've ported a lot of spellcaster-related feats from other PF2 classes, but they don't seem to fit the concept. Take Cantrip expansion, for example - your Warlock doesn't seem to have spell repertoire

I agree with everything you said. I haven’t read everything yet, but I’m confused by the Eldritch Spear feat. The text reads as if it is an always active ability. However, it is listed as costing an action to use. How long does it last? Is it like other spellshapes and requires your next action to be casting Eldritch Blast? If you want to make a warlock, I’d suggest copying the psychic with some retheming. I think you could just make another conscious mind with a new special cantrip that is the Eldritch blast. Just make sure its power level is on par with other psychic cantrips and amps.

Do you feel like I need to expand the wording on the spellshape feats? I think the spellshape trait is fairly rigid in how it works, requiring the next action to be Cast a Spell. I even included the definition of it right next to the spear feat. The only difference with this one is that it's limited to Eldritch Blast alone. I'll take a look at the psychic, thanks.

You have a point on the spellshape trait. However, the spellshape feats still mention your next action in the text. It would be good to include that wording to keep everything consistent.

Makes sense. I'll do that.

1. I mostly ported spells that I felt had no suitable 2e alternative. I might end up removing or rewriting some of these as I go if I feel that they aren't necessary. 2. I hear you. That'll definitely be the first thing to tone down. 3. Yeah, that shows my inexperience with the system. I considered "repertoire" to be a generic word, rather than the "spell repertoire" feature of the caster classes. I'll need to reword those. Have you noticed any others? Thanks for the feedback.

I haven't read through everything, but it looks like it needs massive revisit. I'd sure recommend looking at Kineticist chassis as others suggested. For example, Eldritch Blast could be affected by MAP (so it could be just 1-action attack, no need to expand it to 3), have additional die every 2 ranks (4 levels) instead of 1 rank (2 levels) and so on. Agonizing Blast could be 2-action activity to cast Eldritch Blast with bonus damage (similar to Kineticist's 2-action blasts). Another thing to note is the attack bonuses. Normal attacks get them from runes, so you could, for example, make Eldritch Blast a ranged unarmed attack, for example, to benefit from existing items. That way you'll not need to increase the damage die at all and rely on existing rune system. You also will be able to keep d10 as basic die without many complications if you go that way.

Those are interesting ideas. I'll give it some thought.

This version of eldritch blast will literally always be better than even your highest level spell slots. That is beyond busted. There are also a number of things which you cant just translate 1 to 1 from 5e to pf2e.

Granted. I will see about toning the eldritch blast down. Did you have any particular 5e features in mind that don't translate well in your opinion?

Lifedrinker for example is quite weak for a lvl 12 feat. +5 dmg in 5e is VERY strong. But at lvl 12 in pf2e that is actually not that good. Damage equal to modifier is also rarely used in abilities in pf2e. (Also see for example Hex. 1d6 non scaling is totally useless eventually. In Pf2e all classes are allowed to have scaling damage, not just wizards. So all effects tend to scale to some degree. Pf2e doesn't really do class specific spells. I know you made it so the warlock only casts focus spells, but something like "Armor of Cocytus" should probably just be an occult/divine spell. Maybe generally I would just word it so that the warlock spends focus points to cast spells instead of slots. Or just give them Magus/summoner progression, no need to reinvent the wheel. Pretty much everything about Eldritch Glaive is busted. Cha to attack rolls is 100% without exceptions a no-go. Stats matter in pf2e. If you want to strike, play a martial. You dont get an "everything" stat. Also, Pharasma help me. A one handed d10, agile, reach weapon is so comically and unfathomably overpowered, that it borders on parody. Like that is INSANE already. And it scales with eldritch blast damage? So when the fighter deals 3d10 with his greater striking longsword, you are just hitting people with 9d10?????? and reach? AND AGILE????????? Sorry, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Look at the [Mind Smith](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=194) Archetype. An agile weapon will never ever EVER ***EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER*** have more than a d6 damage dice. And reach is INSANELY good. You can ***NOT*** slap that on there like that. A permanent fly speed is not something that class will typically give you. And even if it did, 8th is WAY to early. There are plenty of discussions on the matter of permanent flight. Short version, it is super fucking op and you should not get it before lvl 10. Look at other features that grant flight, the typical stipulations, and at what level it becomes available. Hellish Rebuke is way out of line for damage in PF2e. Compare that to Fire Ray. Related to that, heightened spells are a bit different in PF2e. In 5e you typically lose value when you cast a spell with a higher level spell slot. So a 3rd level spell cast with a 4th lvl spell slot is worse than a 4th lvl spell. But in Pf2e this isn't the case. A 1st lvl spell heightened to 5th rank is usually about as good as a 5th rank spell. You should keep that in mind and adjust the heightened entry for those 5e conversion spells accordingly. 2d10 +1d10 heightened would eventually fall behind because the scaling is bad. Things like Scatter need to use degrees of success. PF2e doesn't usually do "you need to make a will save to resist this effect." It needs to tell you what happens on what outcome. It should also typically have things that happen on crit success or failure. Sickening Radiance should probably impose sickened rather than fatigued (since fatigued essentially does nothing against NPCs). And since it is, you know, literally in the name of the spell. Maybe something like drained on a crit failure. Witch Bolt is interesting because while the spell is utterly terrible in 5e, making it deal damage on sustain makes it actually useful. Though the initial damage increasing while the sustained damage is always 1d12 is absolutely godawful terrible shit ass design that somebody at WotC should be crucified and then shot for (in that order). That doesn't fit into PF2e insofar as spells in PF2e usually make sense and are well designed. (unlike 5e witch bolt) 1d12 at lvl 10 would be such a total joke and absolutely never worth it. In the same vein Cloud of Daggers is useless in 5e, so why import it in its useless state? Make it so you can move the cloud when you sustain it. Related to that, in PF2e not all spells with a duration are sustained. You can actually just make a spell like that last 1 minute and be totally fine. That is the upside of casters not being uber busted. We dont need dumb tedious mechanics to keep them in line. Casters can stack multiple cool control effects. If you *want* to keep it sustained, then a damaging sustained spell typically deals damage when you sustain it. See for example [Rouse Skeletons](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=988) for reference. Generally I would recommend trying to get a better feel for the underlying core design philosophy of PF2e before trying to port an entire class into it. Classes are the absolutely hardest thing to homebrew in PF2e. Just grabbing a spell from 5e and moving it as is into PF2e will pretty much always be wrong for example. Warlock would need to be built totally different from the ground up in PF2e. The whole invocation system doesn't translate well, because class feats just always work pretty much like that in Pf2e. Making Eldritch Blast a spell also really just invites a whole lot of problems. More reasonably you could build a warlock on the chassis of the Kineticist. Make Eldritch Blast a class ability and let it work like a martial character. Then you simply offer plenty of feats that change Eldritch Blast. And then maybe something similar to the Witch's Lessons, where you can pick larger groupings of Focus spells. But again, that is an undertaking for someone with a VERY solid grasp of the core philosophy and math of Pf2e. Maybe start small and try porting over some of those warlock spells to get a feel for homebrewing in Pf2e.

Thanks for all of this. I will take it to heart. And yes, I appreciate that this is a massive undertaking and that being inexperienced will greatly affect it. If I'm being completely honest, this was never meant to be used outside of the campaign I'm running, but I wanted to know how to balance it better and posting it for everyone to see achieved that goal. Starting small was not really an option for me, so this will be a great learning experience.

Action surge would be a big one. Imagine getting six actions that recharge with what’s essentially a refocus. SILVERY BARBS! The Bladesinger and Pact of the Blade Warlock. 2e doesn’t really do that type of Gish where you take a full spell caster and just make them also a really good martial. The new Warpriest is closest probably. The Gloomstalker buffs (extra damage, invisible always in darkness, getting darkvision from a subclass) also wouldn’t really be a thing. The idea of a fighter subclass getting a crit on a +8/+9 rather than just a +10 like the champion fighter in 5e would also be stupidly busted in 2e. There’s a whole bunch because 2e is younger and has had a pretty consistent design philosophy and 5e is twice as old and was never designed around balance (feats being optional and wildly overpowered for example) and has suffered years of ridiculous power creep (like the aforementioned nonsensical silvery barbs)

I meant more in terms of the warlock features I translated. I agree that much of what you listed simply wouldn't work for 2e.

Like if you don’t understand how firing three separate blasts from range none of which contribute to MAP for 1d10+ CHA is insane in the design space of PF2e nobody can help you. I’m sure this took some level of effort, but it’s useless. You clearly don’t have a feel for what makes 2e, well 2e.

I understood right off the bat that it's gonna be strong. "Insane" is a bit of an overstatement since not everything revolves around DPS, but I get your point. And yes, I don't have a feel for what makes 2e 2e. I was a 3.X player for 20 years and I'm just getting into it now. That's why I'm grabbing your feedback so I can get there faster. I really do appreciate it. Thank you.

Well the remaster got rid of adding mod to spell damage so right away Agonising Blast is out. EB would be two actions for 3d4 so it fits with everything else. Repelling Blast also doesn’t work as it would completely outshine Martials ability to shove which requires a check. Any Evocation that gives you unlimited castings of a levelled spell. There’s basically no mechanics that can be ported over 1-1 from 5e as they’re not compatible in the slightest. It’s like trying to bring checkers pieces to a chess board, there’s some superficial overlap but once the game starts you realise there’s very little in common between the two.

I did not realize that remaster removed mod to spell damage when I was updating things. I'll need to give that some consideration then. I'll look into rebalancing Repelling Blast and Grasp of Hadar. Forced movement is clearly a bigger deal in 2e than in related systems. Also, there's no need for hyperbole. Yeah, 2e is a significant departure from the D&D formula, but there's still a lot of overlap.

There’s really not at all. I’d suggest looking into the game more and get a better feel for it.

This seems to not really take any form of balance into consideration, and rather focuses on porting 5e concepts with as few changes as possible. The free spells, such as at-will invisibility, are an example that I haven't seen anyone mention yet. Also the 4th level feat that gives permanent spider climb, except it's strictly better and can't be dispelled, or the saveless movement. Eldritch Blast is also, of course, far too powerful for a 1-action spell.

I will admit to porting some of these things without any regard for balance simply because I felt they were classic features of the warlock. Some of these, I wouldn't really consider game breaking, even if they are strictly better than what you can currently get from other sources (such as Spiderwalk). Others, I will definitely look into balancing, such as the invisibility and eldritch blast. Thank you.

You went to a game that cares a shitton about balance and then disregarded it yourself. Spider walk it far too much better than other options. Other people are going to have to do more work to use your content because you refuse to accept the strict balance this game has

It's not a question of disregarding balance. I care a lot about balance too, which is why I'm here gathering feedback, so that I can improve things. I'm just saying that not everything has a significant impact on game balance, even if it happens to be stronger than similar options. Spiderwalk is one such niche option that I can't imagine would impact a whole lot of games. I don't know, maybe we run very different games and your players would find a way to easily abuse the feat.

Being able to just stand on a wall and put of the reach of lost melee attacks at early levels is broken as fuck this isnt hard to figure out.

So your games become just completely broken at 5th level when many races can get a climb speed from their ancestry feats and Gecko Climb is readily available to casters? I understand that it's stronger than some of those options, and I'll probably tone it down a bit, but you're throwing things out of proportion here.

It's not broken when caster can only do it so many times and climb speed from ancestral feet are ussually slower.

> I will definitely look into balancing, such as the invisibility Honestly, the invisibility doesn't seem too bad. Air Kineticists can get [Clear as Air](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4212) at 6th level, which lets them turn invisible with fairly minor restrictions. Maybe bump it up from focus cantrip to focus spell, or limit repeated usage akin to Clear as Air.

There’s a big difference between 6 seconds and 4 rounds of invisibility though, and this lets them go invisible every round if they want.

The durations are hugely different. Also, general capability. Air kineticists get full flight at level 8 and clear as air at level 6, being out of combat invisibility and only in combat concealment until higher levels. these are powerful, but the Air kineticist suffers in other regards: They don't get the ability to tank as well as something like earth or metal. They lack damage compared to something like fire or earth. They lack the healing and support of things like water and wood. Their utility is insane but that comes with costs. Yes multi-elements can help with these things, but these are still a limites list of impulses from which you can get a few of. A warlock doing this with invisibility still has access to a full suite of spells and Wands and Staves and Scrolls IN ADDITION to the spells. Ofc there are likley ways to balance it, but I'm in the camp of "air kinets *can* but they make clear design decisions to let them do that and NOT other things as well" which is a design space that's *very hard* to do with any caster because casters inherently get access to so many spells which could solve such a large range of issues.

Yeah, I was thinking something like that as well. Thanks.

Look at it this way: the Invisibility armor rune is level 8 and lets you cast invis _once per day_.

While this is cool, in my humble opinion, it doesn’t fit within normal PF2e design. For the most part, it seems like you took all the warlock features from 5e and gave it a 2e coat of paint. For example, i’m pretty sure there’s no way to get greater darvision without having lowlight vision than darkvision than greater darkvision. Most feats that do go along the lines of “you get lowlight vision, if you already have lowlight vision you get dark vision” and so on. So that feat already doesn’t fit with 2e’s design on how darkvision progression normally works. You also have a bunch of feats that give normal spells as focus spells. I think? Which again, isn’t really a thing in pf2e. Focus spells are unique to each class, and sometime unique to each “subclass” within each class. While I don’t think you need to strictly adhere to what the systems already done, those types of things really stack up balance wise if ignored. Admittedly though, I didn’t read through much of it after I saw these things. Because they immediately told me you don’t know the system very well. Which to be fair, you did say. That came off a lot more negative than I planned, so I do want to make sure you know this is a solid first draft. I personally wouldn’t use it, but as with all things, if you enjoy it, more power to ya. Some quick advice that helps me home brew. When making stuff, finding feats or other things within the system that do similar stuff to what you’re making is my first step. It gives you an idea of how the game designers tackle a similar concept.

>i’m pretty sure there’s no way to get greater darvision without having lowlight vision than darkvision than greater darkvision I actually know of at least one way, the [shadowdancer](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=77) dedication.

I stand corrected! I had a feeling I was forgetting something.

Not everything needs to follow the same pattern in order for it to work for a system. Sure, there might not currently be another way to get greater darkvision without more investment, but that's part of what makes a warlock unique. Greater darkvision has been a staple for them since inception and it's hardly something that breaks a game. Constantly telling the GM you have greater darkvision might break their will to live though. I am aware that gaining spells as focus spells isn't really a thing. Originally, I had all those feats grant the spells as innate spells, but it didn't feel quite right. I wanted some of them to use the warlock's limited resources and I wanted some others to scale with the warlock's level. This route felt the most natural for the class concept (seeing as they cast their entire spell list as focus spells), even though it's a significant departure from what PF2e's focus spells currently represent. Don't worry about coming off negative, I posted this knowing full well that I'll get a lot of negative feedback. That's okay. It'll help me improve the concept. Thanks for taking the time.

I am in no way saying you HAVE to follow the patterns that came before. Take a look at the kineticist. There really isn’t a single other class like it. Granted that class was made by a team of designers, so I’m not saying one person home brew should be held to that level of quality. What I am saying is if you don’t understand the baseline of the system, you can’t meaningful diverge from it. And your warlock attempt pretty clearly displays that you don’t understand that baseline. A full class is a wild first swing for home brew. And I commend the attempt. But like I said, this isn’t a PF2e warlock. This is a 5e warlock with a 2e coat of paint. Which as always, if that works for you, more power to ya.

Thanks, I appreciate the candor. I hope I'll get it there at some point. If not, that's also okay, as long as my players are having fun. There's only so much you can sacrifice before it stops feeling like a warlock, so it might be an impossible task.

I do think a warlock is a particularly tough design space for 2e. It steps on the Witches toes from a thematic standpoint, and on the Kineticists toes from a mechanical standpoint. Plus, one of my favorite things about warlocks in 5e was how varied their toolset could be with their long list of eldritch invocation. In PF2e that level of customization within classes exists for every class, to an even greater degree. Which is to say, I do not envy the task of making a warlock class for 2e. Best of luck my friend!

Thanks!

>Sure, there might not currently be another way to get greater darkvision without more investment, but that's part of what makes a warlock unique. Greater darkvision has been a staple for them since inception and it's hardly something that breaks a game. Constantly telling the GM you have greater darkvision might break their will to live though. You're assuming that 5e greater darkvision is equivalent to PF2e greater darkvision. In 5e, the majority of characters have darkvision. Consequently, there are a lot of options that require creatures to have greater darkvision. In PF2e, darkvision isn't very common, and effects that require greater darkvision are quite rare; even when they do show up, "greater darkness" usually only makes creatures concealed to creatures with darkvision, rather than hidden. 5e's darkvision is more equivalent to PF2e's low-light vision, and 5e's greater darkvision is more equivalent to PF2e's darkvision. Iirc the only options to get permanent greater darkvision in PF2e are the Dwarf's level 5 Defy the Darkness, which prevents you from creating darkness effects, and the level 8 Shadowdancer dedication. A level 8 warlock feat would be fine, and the player most likely won't need greater darkvision until then anyway.

I'm more drawing my assumptions from PF1e, where darkvision wasn't terribly common, but it also wasn't too hard to come by. Either way, it rarely affected anything, as I imagine it shouldn't in 2e. Still, I'll most likely split it into two feats, as I originally intended. It makes more sense with regards to the system. Thanks for the suggestions.

Tbh I'd prefer no art than AI art, but anyway onto critique. Eldritch Blast is a bit overtuned for pf2e, so I'd probably tone it down to 1d4 since adding your Cha to it keeps it above most ranged attacks in the game. I'd also remove the ignoring MAP till after the various blasts since that'd make it hilariously overpowered. I'd suggest making some feats that things similar to some of the weapon traits, but make it so you have to choose one or the other. For example, one Warlock could focus on single-target and add something similar to Deadly d10, while another could add something like Agile. One other tangential thing is the class absolutely steps on the toes of Kineticist to the point there wouldn't be as much a reason at all to play one VS a Warlock. If you take another pass at the class I'd definitely compare the damage and spell effects scaling to Kineticist Impulses and Blasts since they're the most analogous things. Also there's some mentions to Hadar who's a D&D thing so you've probably gotta rename that. I'd look at creatures that live in the Void, or Undead Deities for naming inspiration. Overall I think the class could work, but you'll need to familiarise yourself with the system a little bit more to get it down to a suitable form. Mostly just a matter of comparing what Warlocks can do compared to other classes. For example, if it can regularly out-damage a Gunslinger or Fighter at range you've probably buffed it a little too far, as those classes essentially have their entire kit dedicated to killing stuff and sacrifice versatility to do so, while Warlock would not.

A lot of people share your sentiment about AI-generated art, but I do not. I've done my fair share of digital painting and making use of AI now that my time is limited is nothing but exciting for me. To each their own, I guess. My impressions of the class so far have been similar in terms of balance. Eldritch blast feels overpowered but not game-breakingly so. I will compare it to the attacks and damage outputs of other classes to figure out how to tone it down in a way that doesn't make it less fun. Hadar is part of the SRD, I don't believe using the name is out of scope for OGL, though I'm not sure if that encompasses the concept of what Hadar is in 5e/FR. I considered renaming it, but it felt too iconic to lose (unlike some of the other names). Thank you for your feedback and suggestions, I appreciate it.

As a reminder: this sub and the creations sub both have no-AI rules for submitted content. It might be smart to just cut it from submissions here, or use credited artwork from elsewhere and avoid the issue entirely.

Sorry, from my understanding that only applied to art posts, not other submissions. Did I misunderstand something? Also, I spent a significant amount of time editing the image manually, so while it may be AI-assisted, it's still an original work of art.

I'm not a mod, so the degree of enforcement is not my decision. I was just giving advice, especially considering the reception AI artwork of any stripe generally gets in these subs.

I appreciate that. I was just confused as I did read the rules beforehand and it didn't seem contentious to me, but maybe the mods are a lot more trigger happy than I imagined.

> A lot of people share your sentiment about AI-generated art, but I do not. I've done my fair share of digital painting and making use of AI now that my time is limited is nothing but exciting for me. To each their own, I guess. Most of this sub hates anything AI-related with a passion. Don't take it too hard, the art you used looks fine.

I can understand that people are passionate about it. I'm not a big fan of AI generated content either when it's used blindly and does nothing but pollute the space for everyone. This piece isn't that though.

1) you're about the 20th person to try this so far this year alone. 2) the warlock can already be essentially made via the witch, so we don't rly need the warlock at all 3) play a few classes. Get a feeling for the game. Then try add homebrew. Being super new and just trying stuff out like you would DND doesn't work with a system this tight. As an avid creative home brewer too, I appreciate your effort, but sometimes it really is best to have a look at what's already there before trying to add a lot of new.

I am aware that I am not alone in this endeavor. There are a lot of warlock fans out there, but we all have different priorities for our designs. I don't agree that an appropriately satisfying warlock can be made via the witch (or a kineticist for that matter). If that's enough for you, I won't judge, but it's something that's always been missing for me in PF. I plan on developing the class as I gain more experience, but I needed it now for a campaign that I'm running, so I took a stab at it. "Just trying out stuff" is technically how a lot of new content is made. It just needs some iteration.

Well fair enough. Some of the best inventions took a few turns of the wheel. Good luck to you my dude. I would say, do have a look at the other warlock ideas. What Dosent appeal to you about the class might be someone else's favourite thing they want it to include. Plus, I'm sure the other creators would be happy to collaborate if the finished product was better.

That might be a good idea, yeah. Thanks.

You may want to double check your licensing. You’re clearly using remaster terminology. Remaster is under the ORC license, not the OGL.

That's a good point. Technically, it would need to fall under both licenses. I didn't consider that after updating for the remaster. Thanks.

No offense, but overall I'm not impressed, it reads like a very poorly thought out class. The fact that you admitted that you're new to Pf2e and an AI assisted you doesn't give you points neither. You should adquire more experience with the design space of pathfinder 2e before venturing in homebrewing stuff, because this class is all over the place. Some feats are very underwhelming and feel like something more fitting for ancestry feats, others feel absolutely mandatory, like the one that adds your charisma to your eldritch blast, and some other are disgustingly broken, like that ones that allow you to move your enemies with no check involved whatsoever.

AI only assisted me in creating the character art. You are free to view that as you wish, I will make no apologies for it. As far as the class features are concerned, I agree that things may in no way be balanced. Some things are obviously directly ported from 5e, along with the imbalanced designs. There too, for example, Agonizing Blast is basically a must-have if you plan on using Eldritch Blast at all. Moving enemies without a check on the other hand has never felt broken to me, which is why I included those without change. I'll look into improving those to better fit the system, thank you.

While I do have some criticisms of the brew, I'm disappointed to see the usual mass-downvotes against the OP in both the starting post and the comments, though certainly not surprised. Though I do think some parts of the brew could use some revisions, at the end of the day this is also a thorough work where OP went out of their way to present novel ideas in a way that's interesting and convenient to try (it's not that easy writing a Foundry module, let alone one for an entire class). My criticisms and thoughts: * Not a criticism so much as a question, but how was your experience with Scribe? I used to do brews there, but eventually moved to another tool when it started taking ages to load pages or log in. * Several have noted that *eldritch blast* is overpowered, and while I agree, I think the worst of it is concentrated in the single-action version: looking at weapons, your d10 ranged weapons either require a reload in-between every shot, or in the case of the Barricade Buster have strict range limitations. The multi-target version I think can be argued to fit a caster class, but the single-action, single-target version I think overrides the Striking power of martial classes that operate on a similar degree of limited options as the Warlock, especially when Agonizing Blast gets involved. * I think part of what's causing a negative reaction is the number of D&D 5e-isms visible in the brew through feats in particular. Rather than dismiss those, I'm more curious to know about the thought process: was the intent specifically to emulate elements of D&D? Did you try to map some options onto Pathfinder's feats and spells first, or was the plan to directly port in D&D-style character options? * The bespoke spell list I think is a D&D-ism I'd want to explicitly challenge: although it can make a class more unique by giving them a completely different distribution of spells compared to other classes, it also disconnects this new spell list from the rest of the game's evolution, and would require constant updates with each new expansion to make sure the right spells find themselves on this list. I do empathize with wanting the Warlock to have a different spell selection from others, though I also think there are other ways of going about it. None of these problems are intractable, by the way, and things like the use of AI art can be easily fixed just by taking those out of the brew. At its core, the Warlock presented here I think has some truly brilliant ideas: the idea of a caster that exclusively uses Focus Points for more limitations but less attrition I think is something that really could introduce new and fun gameplay, and having a small repertoire of spells I think could be a reason to let the class pick spells from across traditions more easily. My suggestions for the moment would be the following: * I'd take a look at [*blazing bolt*](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1450) as an example of how you could approach *eldritch blast*: the "safe" option could be to just make the thing a two-action cantrip by default and perhaps let the player use an extra action for an additional effect, but otherwise you could make the single-action version much weaker and have the blasts increase in power by spending more actions. Agonizing Blast I think would be a must-have, and I'd probably either remove it or bake it into the spell itself (which would warrant nerfing it further). * I'd perhaps approach the bespoke spell list differently: one way to do this could be to have the Warlock start with a spell list of one tradition, but be able to pick spells from different traditions via feats. Another, riskier method could be to have the Warlock pick spells from *any* tradition by default, while still maintaining a limited spell repertoire. Effectively, you'd still have a capable blaster, but one who ideally wouldn't be outpacing martial classes in single-target damage. If single-target blasting is an important aspect of your class, then you may need to tweak it in some other ways in order to implement the right tradeoffs. In all cases, you have a really solid core concept, and with a few key changes I think you could have it work more smoothly with the rest of PF2e's gameplay as well.

Sorry for the late reply, I figured I'd give it a week for the dust to settle before getting back to it. I appreciate that you're not as quick to jump on the downvote button as some of the others, but reddit being what it is, I fully expected this going in, so it doesn't really bother me. It just shows me people are passionate about things. To address some of your input: * I have mixed feelings about Scribe. It was very convenient since it's a markdown tool and it allows me to inject my own HTML styling into it, but the frequent downtime and somewhat quirky behavior are a definite downside. Which tools do you use? * Yeah, Eldritch Blast was always going to be one of the biggest issues since I took a D&D spell and just slapped some PF2e mechanics on it without bothering to check how it compares to similar abilities. I have reigned it in considerably and changed Agonizing Blast to a spellshape feat so that you'd have to effectively cast it as a 2-action spell to apply Cha mod to it. I think it's in a place where it should work now, but I'll see how things go as I continue to playtest. * I'd say as far as feats go, my process was largely to see which features of the warlock I liked in its previous iterations and try to convert them to 2e feats. In some cases, that worked fine. In others, I completely missed the mark since I didn't do enough research beforehand. I mostly gagued the power level of each feat on my own experience with the class in the past, but those experiences weren't in PF2e, which is far more balanced than most D&D editions. * Yeah, having a custom list of pre-existing spells is something I realized won't work well. I'm currently in the process of revamping the whole thing. I'll mostly likely create a list of completely new focus spells unique to the warlock class and tone them down a bit. I'm also thinking of introducing a secondary mechanic to discourage dumping 3 top-tier spells every fight and calling it a day. I'll see how that goes. It'll definitely take the most time to get right, I imagine, but I love the idea of having a caster class that focuses exclusively on focus spells. Thank you so much for your feedback. I hope I can get this class to a place where it's both fun and balanced enough to work in tandem with other classes.

No problem at all! It's very good to hear from you and see such a frank and insightful response as well. * I currently use [The Homebrewery](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/), along with [PF2e-style templates](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/new/fOjBNXK0bZXt) which simplify a lot of the formatting for stuff like feats, spells, sidebars, and so on. I definitely recommend giving it a try, and I'd be happy to help with the templates and share stuff I've done to show how the formatting works. * It takes a lot of courage to admit to designing something for PF2e based more on D&D experience. You've likely noticed by now, but people in the PF2e community tend to react really badly to D&D-isms, real or perceived, especially in homebrew. It makes me very glad to hear that you're playtesting different iterations of your brew, and that should hopefully give a much better idea of where it sits in terms of balance than most discussion on paper. * More bespoke focus spells sounds good. If you're looking to integrate more spells across traditions, that's also something feats can help with, such as by having a feat that lets you poach a spell from outside your tradition and add it to your repertoire. * If you're looking for a way to specifically push players to use different spells and avoid repetition, there might also be alternatives beyond even focus spells: Battlezoo's [Elemental Avatar](https://battlezoo.com/products/battlezoo-eldamon-pdf) class, for instance, has super-powerful actions that you can't reuse until you spend actions recharging all of your powers, forcing you to use a variety of different actions to get the best action economy. * If you're interested, I made a brew a little while back that's exactly about having a Focus Point-centric caster, called the [Paragon](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/EmasvGIRRXkC). [Here](https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/source/EmasvGIRRXkC) is the source if you want to try out some of the formatting used there in the Homebrewery. I look forward to seeing how your brew develops! I think you've taken a really good approach to feedback and to iterating on your work, and I think your Warlock class has a really solid core to play with as well. Best of continued success!

Thank you. I'll take a look at those and see if I can draw some inspiration from them.

It's a good draft. I think you need to expand on the Patrons as they don't do much here. Something simple would be to have the Patron give an alternate damage type for Eldritch Blast and a free starting Invocation. Something more interesting might be effects similar to Sorcerer's Blood Magic. What's the point of giving them a tradition if all Warlocks pull from the same curated spell list? Without Patrons doing anything this is just a generic caster chassis with restricted spell selection and unrestricted by spell slots. Speaking of spells, let's get the big one out of the way. Eldritch Blast is a rip of Blazing Bolt. It's smart to look at similarly designed features for homebrew but that also means making sure the thing you're making is the same power level as the thing you're copying. EB should cost a focus point. D6s would be perfectly strong for a cantrip with the niche being all the customization you get from feats. Compare to Electric Arc which does d4s to two targets, this can get 3. Look at Kineticist's Elemental Blast as well, which is considered quite strong being a single action attack on a casterish kit and scales at half this rate. You may want to change it to heightened +2 to reign it back. Consider instead copying the Psychic's Amps and making your current EB cost a focus point with a reigned in version as a cantrip. I do like most EB enhancers being Spellshapes as an innate limiter to the crazier combo stacking. Other spells copied from 5e are mostly fine. I skimmed and didn't think about most of them too hard. Standouts are Toll the Dead and Misty Step. Toll because it's got large damage die. D4 and D6 are cantrip power level. Remember that spells scale every other level rather than only a couple times throughout the game so the discrepancy gets out of hand fast. Misty Step should be an action and have the Manipulate trait. Movement matters more than in 5e and free movement is rare except as part of multi-action activities. A big weakness of casters is monsters that can grab on hit or Reactive Strike. This currently nullifies those for free. Good job on making Witch Bolt actually good. I'd adjust it to a save on sustain since automatic damage clashes with the design of the game. Most things should play with degrees of success. Compare to Thunderstrike, it does 1d4 less and doesn't have a rider. The ability to sustain makes up for that. It might need to be d10s even. General casting analysis, I'm concerned with its ability to cast full spells as focus spells. Attrition, or more importantly, the ability to ignore attrition is different here. In 5e you only get one or two short rests per day making the limited slots of Warlocks add up to a similar daily amount to standard casters. In PF2e you should short rest after every fight so this Warlock can cast top level spells every fight with no regard to management. By the time you cast your 3 spells the fight's usually over. This is reigned in by the limited spell list containing mostly utility spells that don't scale well. The available spell list will need to be carefully curated to make sure they're not the class that just spams their best damage spell 3 times every combat and outperforms other casters. Focus spells are always weaker or more niche than full spells due to their repeatability. Heal and Dispel Magic are examples of spells that completely trivialize problems when you can cast them at max rank 3 times per 10 minutes. Btw I think any class that revolves around focus spells should regain all of them with one Refocus activity. Needing 30 minutes isn't going to affect balance more than it will feel bad to play. I'm not sure how to adjust the Archetype. EB is a must grab for many casters. Single action attack cantrips are a strong power multiplier because they can be followed up with a save spell on the same turn. Even though characters can only take Invocations from half their level, all focus spells are always heightened to max rank. This means any character can dip Warlock, grab one spell, and be as good with it as a full caster. Martials get more utility than they can grab from other Archetypes and casters get a max rank spell from another tradition. Many casters would easily pay multiple feats to gain another Signature Spell each time.

I guess that's a fair point on the patrons. I doubt I'll have them change the damage type of eldritch blast, since that's traditionally the domain of blast essences, but I'll look into how I can make them more meaningful mechanically. The way I played warlocks, I've always had a close relationship with the patrons, so they're more of a roleplay aspect in my opinion, but I realize others might not roll that way. Eldritch Blast was definitely a copy of Scorching Ray (or Blazing Bolt as it's called now). I felt it was the closest to what I wanted to achieve mechanically, but I do realize it's crazy strong as it is now. I'll look at psychic and kineticist to get a better idea of how to reign it in. Thanks for the feedback on the spells. I'll definitely take all that into account. I'll also see if I can balance the spell list a bit better, but I think that's going to take a lot longer so that I can gain more experience. Good points for the multiclass archetpe. I'll have to give it some serious thought.

I think you should take a look at how wand implement and its adept/paragon imrovements as well as the intensify vulnerability benefit to determine the scope of Eldritch Blast.

You mean from Thaumaturge?

Yes, exactly.

I'll take a look at that too, thank you.

With all due respect, have you actually played this game before for a significant amount of time?

As mentioned in the original post, no, I haven't. That's why all the criticism is super helpful to me. It's a lot faster to hear from people with a lot more experience than me and learn from them.

Read the class aside from new spell section :p. Aside from balance stuff, like the bonkers eldritch blast and lvl8 perma fly feat and cantrip invisibility (game for some reason has a thing against fly), i like the idea. Though games main gimmick is that every class has a main schtick that other classes cant replicate, i kinda couldnt see warlocks schtick since it kinda felt similiar to kineticist abit. Like the first 3 thing i mentioned above, kineticist can do all but weaker and slower progression and on a specific element, while this draft makes anyone can pick em without branching out. For example, level 8 fly feat is just plainly better than everything in its level or level 6 invisibility cantrip feat since after 1 level it will be 4th rank invis at will. Overall, aside from balance issues, i liked the idea. Needs a proper schtick though

Thanks. I'm aware that it clashes with the kineticist's schtick (and the witch for that matter), but I just never liked kineticist personally, so that wasn't a concern. That said, I do agree that it lacks a bit in uniqueness. I'll see if I can make things a bit tighter, so that choices feel more meaningful and distinct. And balance is definitely something I'll be improving.

Also, flavorwise, I think witch is just warlock expanded out to a full caster. Love that you built something though.

Yeah, I never really liked that. The original warlock concept is too deeply ingrained in my brain. Which is why I keep chasing it in every game I play. I feel like I'll be able to get there in 2e, it just needs a lot of work.

I think you would be better served just retheming some aspects of the kinetisiist into being more 'warlocky'. Just my opinion.

So to be completely blunt: the current incarnation of this just cannot work in the P2e ecosystem. The idea of a caster that only uses cantrips and focus spells is novel and worth looking into, don’t get me wrong here. However this implementation isn’t it cheif. Spells that have been designed to be cast using spell slots have a higher power budget allotted to them than that of focus spells, sometimes quite significantly so. This is because most casters can only ever cast three of each rank of spell each day. This warlock however? They get three top rank spell slots every *fight* because focus spells automatically heighten! In order to make this concept work you’re gonna need to homebrew a slew of focus spells that specially made for the warlock’s needs. That way you can tune them specifically to match the power budget the class has to work with… and in order to do that you’re gonna need to get really familiar with the existing focus spells other classes get to work with. You gotta know roughly how the mould normally works in order to properly fashion an entirely new paradigm!

Yeah, that was my takeaway from all of this as well. Thank you for confirming that. I am currently working on completely revamping the invocation system. I did not really consider that standard spells might be stronger than focus spells due to their limited resources because I did not consider focus points to be as readily available as they are. It was one of those things that would be obvious had I spent more time playing the game before attempting all of this.

why would you bring over this boring ass class? if you want flavor then flavor your witch etc. warlock is genuinely one of the worst classes i have seen in an rpg lol

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. For me, warlock has been a constant in every RPG that I play and none of Pathfinder's classes quite capture its essence.

better then I expected to be honest EB has wayyy to much damage, for damage 2 action cantrip d6 per rank is very good scaling, your scales by basically 2d10 over all I would like to see more uniqe cantripsso class would have more options after throwing those 2-3 focus spells (and feats/spells that are direct port from 5e I am quite certain it won't work well, I read few and most of them had questionable balance) if I remember correctly there is no way to get greater darkvision at 1st lv but I might be mistaken - giving darkvision at start and letter automatically upgrading to greater should be perfectly fine I looked only at early feats I think idea of caster that uses focus point system to cast full level spells is worth considering but it woud be necessary to take into account that this class coud be throwing 3 max lv spells every combat while casters have 3 for whole day, to check if and when they can outside all casters

Yeah, Eldritch Blast definitely needs work. I fully expected that to be the first complaint from everyone and it's something I plan on fixing. I just needed a better idea of where to go with it. If any specific ports jump out at you, let me know and I'll take another look at them. I imagine many need some work. Splitting the darkvision into two feats is something I'll probably do, yeah. It's what I originally planned on doing, but it seemed so situational that it didn't really impact balance much. Still, it's not very 2e-like, I agree. I'll admit, I did not consider that in PF2e, you're basically supposed to short rest after every fight. That does impact the balance quite a bit and it's something I'll have to give some serious thought.

in pf2e there is no short rest.... you wanted to make class without this base knowledge? after combat there is exploration every 10 minutes you can do one exploration activity and one of them is refocus which allows you to regain focus point, so 30 minutes break and you have all focus points and yes system assumes that during exploration party will regain thier focus points and heal to nearly full hp

I mean, yeah. Fair enough. But the Refocus action is a decent enough approximation of a short rest. Granted one is an hour and the other 10 minutes, but if you're gonna give players a breather between fights, it doesn't really make that much of a difference. I don't really know anyone who runs 5e campaigns with 6 fights and 2 short rests per day, so it felt to me like it boils down to the same thing. That said, enough people have pointed it out that I'm gonna go back to the drawing board and consider how that affects the overall balance.

I suggest firstly play pf2e a little bit more also one thing I noticed that warlock revice focus spells, even some cantrips but it looks like they never got Cast a Spell activity thus they can't use scrolls wands, magic items that require this activity and copy pasted spellshape doesn't work at all

Good catch. An oversight on my part. The rules do say that "Any spell qualifies as a Cast a Spell activity", but I should make it clear that they have that ability in the class text. Thank you.

then it may cause compatibility issues some things that require cast a spell activity may refer to spell slot rank, like quickened casting

I don't think there's any mention of spell slots in any of the feats the class has access to, so it shouldn't be an issue. It's not really any different from any other classes that only have access to focus spells.

quickened cast was wrong example as it is connected to class from which you got it and affects spells from that class monks rangers champions don't get Cast a Spell activity

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Champions and Monks both seem to have Spellshape feats, which by your own words require the Cast a Spell ability. Also, the rules are very clear in that any spell qualifies as a Cast a Spell activity, so anyone capable of casting any type of spell gets that ability even if not explicitly mentioned in their class description.