D&D 5E Blade Pact Warlocks and Conventional Wisdom

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.

Everything in 5e is based on a story, and the story that informs the blade pact is this one: evil prince wants to be king, makes deal, knows that if the king is obviously magic'd, there will be an investigation, possibly resulting in prince not getting the crown, picks blade, uses magic to look like someone else (preferably someone who doesn't like the prince), stabs king, king dies, patsy gets executed, and prince becomes king. Is there anything in that story that screams front line combatant in heavy armor? I think the phrase "magic assassin" is much closer.

It doesn't mean you can't be a front line melee type with a bladelock, but neither the class or subclass are designed to do that.

Bladelocks are viable and enjoyable without multi-classing. But - and it's a big but - they are generally perceived as falling behind the power curve compared to either multi-classed bladelocks, or single classed melee types.

You are spending feats (usually multiple feats for armor proficiency and resilant Con) to gain what you get with a single level of fighter. It takes many levels to "catch up" to a regular melee type, and even once you have, they've spent feats and ABI's on increasing their main attributes, feats like GWM or Heavy Armor Master, etc.

That's if you want to play a front line damage dealer who benefits from warlock class abilities, invocations, and spells.

The other option is to accept that you aren't a front-line tank and use Mobility, Dex, the Mage Armor invocation and fulfill the role of a mobile striker (i.e play like a rogue in combat instead of fighter).

I've played a lot of bladelocks, and it comes down to the play style you want. If you want to be the front-line tank bladelock, it's really inefficient to do it without that first level as fighter. A mobile striker type is easier to do, although some people feel that a tomelock with the shillelagh cantrip in their book can do it as well or better.

I like the Bladelock, but have not gotten a good story for just a bladelock. As Mecha mentioned above, the classes are informed by their story. My usual story for Bladelock involves asking why they chose blade. The Prince story that was given could just as easily be done by a Tome or Chain warlock, with a normal weapon. Usually, taking a Blade means they are already proficient with it, or at least wish to be. Using this story, multiclassing makes most sense, because someone like a Rogue or Fighter is already proficient with the weapon, and the Blade Pact makes them even stronger in that regard.

However, as I was writing that I came up with what feels like a good Single classed Bladelock story. Archfey Patron, teen basically wants to be King Arthur, so he takes up a magic sword as training, consulting with the Lady in the Lake on how best to use his new blade, which he has made look exactly like the Sword in the Stone.

The question isn't really is a build viable. 5e is extremely generous in encounter design so that unless you do the most foolish building of all you can probably get it working.

Its just is it comparatively as strong.

Starting fighter gives you all armor, weapon, and con prof. Which is important as you will be in melee and vulnerable to being punched in the face. It also gives you a fighting style which you can grab additional defense or damage with. And it gives you a decent heal (at low levels) that recharges on a short rest (that sure is handy for warlocks who like short rests already).

That said, whenever you multiclass, especially as a caster you are delaying your more powerful later abilities. You are altering your power curve, you will be stronger at different points in the level range. How exactly it changes is up to how you multiclass, but if you just pickup 1/2 levels of fighter, you will still end up with 9th level spells, The same invocations and spell slots,

I have noticed that when they want to do something with a subclass and it doesn't quite fit the class, they move it to another class (see the spell-less ranger and the scout fighter then the scout rogue). I think the heavily armored warlock became the treachery paladin (high charisma, front line melee type, armored, sneaky, makes deals with outsiders with questionable morals).

Yeah, maybe play him as a skirmisher, moving around a lot, dashing in and out of melee as suits the moment.

Dwarf! Everyone forgets dwarf just because they don't have a CHA bonus. Good Str and Con for melee, and medium armor proficiency.

I like my human (variant) fighter1/bladelockX

For the cost of taking that first level of fighter I got heavy armor and defensive combat style (for that extra +1) and as a variant human I could take heavy armor master at first level, so that I could start with a 16 in both Str and Cha.

That one level behind isn't really that bad, after taking polearm master (as going from 2 to 3 melee attacks is indeed a huge boost) I can now catch up on ASI for Cha and then Str. With Lifedrinker it doesn't matter that the third attack is with a d4 rather than a d10 and thanks to defense style I have at least a good compensation for not using a shield (or could decide to just go 1h-staff and shield anyway, as lifedrinker makes the difference between 2 attacks at d10 and 2 attacks at d6 not that noticeable too)

In a lot of ways I feel the UA Hexblade Warlock Patron was created to a add Armor profs to a Blade Pact Warlock, which was perceived to be it's biggest weakness.

I'm not very good at figuring out whether ot not something is balanced though.