Warpiglet
Adventurer
So I really enjoy the warlock. I am getting ready to play another in Storm King's Thunder. I realize in some respects they are not as powerful as some characters--in some circumstances. However, I do not have a problem with that.
What is vexing to me is the admonition that the blade pact warlock is unplayable without multi classing. To that I say "are you sure?" and "how are you playing them?" Here is where we agree:
If you play a blade pact or any warlock as a fighter and have a terrible armor class, you will get jacked up. Note this is conditional.
If you get your hands on armor via feats and or race, I do not see how this holds. For example, as is well known, a variant human can start moderately armored. At level 4 he can take heavily armored. These include +1 for strength and thus, you get a stat bump plus two armor upgrades for two feats. Are we sure that ONE feat is that terrible of a loss especially when the second feat comes sooner than if I multiclassed?
Secondly, what if I take a blade pact warlock and just occasionally mix it up in melee? What if I play a generic warlock much of the time (few people say they are nonviable in general) blasting hexing and misty visioning and then draw a greatsword as the enemy gets close or the fighters need another body to fill the line? Again, this is very different from standing in the front line the whole time, moving in first and so on.
Less combat efficient? In some cases, sure. But terrible? I am struggling with that.
Here is another consideration for the blade pact warlock. It is a waste to use an extra invocation (or two! by 12th level) to beef up melee, right? Well, I suppose it also depends on how you look at it. If you wanted to have misty visions, mask of many faces, devil's sight AND two melee invocations, I can see your conundrum. However, you do not suddenly become less combat effective vis a vis another class. You might give up a little versatility, I agree.
As is so often the case, we often compare apples to oranges. A moment ago, we said the blade pact is not a fighter. Now when I try to be more fighter-like I am giving up too much versatility. So what am I worried about? Versatility? That seemed to account for little when only combat was on the table!
As to multiclassing fighter: the payment for armor and the Con save is that I will be behind one level on spell progress, invocations, and ASI/Feat. In addition, you no longer have a Wis save proficiency. I must say, I actually WANT a wisdom save much of the time. So while I surely cannot say it is wrong to dip (I actually like a cleric dip if my scores allow it for extra spells and armor--if it fits the character concept) I cannot say it is in all ways superior.
My main concern: Sometimes we read things online and think it has been handed down from authority. Here is one voice that says play what your want. It might not only survive in the game for a while, but be more effective than you are told. Don't ignore the veterans and min-maxers, they have great ideas. But think for yourself too! And let fun however you define it win the day.
TLDR: If you want to play a blade pact warlock without multiclassing, realize the cautions against it might be overblown and assume a certain playstyle that you do NOT have to use. Further, there is more than one way to skin a cat and the alternative ways might get overlooked too often.
Editorial: I just want to play but want to play what seems cool. In the current case, if I fail to keep a spell up because of combat chaos, or am less than efficient or have a chance of missing a roll because I am not getting that ASI since I used it for armor, I am willing to take the chance. I just noticed the fiend pact might help with that once a rest as well...but if not, I can take a feat to shore that up. I lose something in doing that sure, but I can decide it.
What is vexing to me is the admonition that the blade pact warlock is unplayable without multi classing. To that I say "are you sure?" and "how are you playing them?" Here is where we agree:
If you play a blade pact or any warlock as a fighter and have a terrible armor class, you will get jacked up. Note this is conditional.
If you get your hands on armor via feats and or race, I do not see how this holds. For example, as is well known, a variant human can start moderately armored. At level 4 he can take heavily armored. These include +1 for strength and thus, you get a stat bump plus two armor upgrades for two feats. Are we sure that ONE feat is that terrible of a loss especially when the second feat comes sooner than if I multiclassed?
Secondly, what if I take a blade pact warlock and just occasionally mix it up in melee? What if I play a generic warlock much of the time (few people say they are nonviable in general) blasting hexing and misty visioning and then draw a greatsword as the enemy gets close or the fighters need another body to fill the line? Again, this is very different from standing in the front line the whole time, moving in first and so on.
Less combat efficient? In some cases, sure. But terrible? I am struggling with that.
Here is another consideration for the blade pact warlock. It is a waste to use an extra invocation (or two! by 12th level) to beef up melee, right? Well, I suppose it also depends on how you look at it. If you wanted to have misty visions, mask of many faces, devil's sight AND two melee invocations, I can see your conundrum. However, you do not suddenly become less combat effective vis a vis another class. You might give up a little versatility, I agree.
As is so often the case, we often compare apples to oranges. A moment ago, we said the blade pact is not a fighter. Now when I try to be more fighter-like I am giving up too much versatility. So what am I worried about? Versatility? That seemed to account for little when only combat was on the table!
As to multiclassing fighter: the payment for armor and the Con save is that I will be behind one level on spell progress, invocations, and ASI/Feat. In addition, you no longer have a Wis save proficiency. I must say, I actually WANT a wisdom save much of the time. So while I surely cannot say it is wrong to dip (I actually like a cleric dip if my scores allow it for extra spells and armor--if it fits the character concept) I cannot say it is in all ways superior.
My main concern: Sometimes we read things online and think it has been handed down from authority. Here is one voice that says play what your want. It might not only survive in the game for a while, but be more effective than you are told. Don't ignore the veterans and min-maxers, they have great ideas. But think for yourself too! And let fun however you define it win the day.
TLDR: If you want to play a blade pact warlock without multiclassing, realize the cautions against it might be overblown and assume a certain playstyle that you do NOT have to use. Further, there is more than one way to skin a cat and the alternative ways might get overlooked too often.
Editorial: I just want to play but want to play what seems cool. In the current case, if I fail to keep a spell up because of combat chaos, or am less than efficient or have a chance of missing a roll because I am not getting that ASI since I used it for armor, I am willing to take the chance. I just noticed the fiend pact might help with that once a rest as well...but if not, I can take a feat to shore that up. I lose something in doing that sure, but I can decide it.
Last edited: