D&D 5E 5e. Repeling blast nerfed in our game. Help me to rebuild my Bard-Lock

Zene

First Post
If you're not really feeling the Invocations, I'd say either go Warlock 1 / Bard X, Sorcerer 1 / Bard X, or just straight Bard depending on what you're trying to do with the warlock levels. If it's just to have decent ranged and melee damage options (via eldritch blast and the blade cantrips), then I'd suggest picking up Magic Initiate as your first feat or as a variant human. Going with sorcerer can give you all those cantrips (well, not eldritch blast, but instead your pick of almost-as-good ranged cantrips) as well as the shield spell, and other bonuses (armor, burst flight, occasional advantage, cleric spells) depending on sorcerer subclass.

Every level you delay bard progression will hurt, so if you can go the Magic Initiate route (or Lore Bard L6 Magical Secrets route) to pick up what you really wanted from the Warlock class, instead of multiclassing, I'd say do that.

BTW that "path to godhood" character concept is great. Lore bard fits it well. Keep in mind that if she's after god-like magical powers (like Wish and True Resurrection), then the faster you can get to Bard Level 18 the sooner she'll have it. Dips will slow her down.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Antarx

Villager
Satire is good too. Bonus movement is about equal to lore's ability to mess up people's attacks. It just depeds on weather you want to be more catwoman, or more manipulative.
Try hitting people with booming blade, and using the bonus action to disengage. They then have to trigger the secondary effect.
That was my fist idea also!! What puts me on doubt about this college are the other abilities. I don't know how to rate them, but they seem to be much less interesting than the lore bard skills.


As for 3...
Hex/blade smites is not too good. It requires you to hit with the greatsword, which means you don't get to use Cha to attack with, and you don't get your shield. You need Str, which otherwise you could dump.
I've only seen a very few situations where summoning a weapon would come in handy.

Darkness and level 2 slots are good, but you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time. Bard has a lot of concentration spells. Hypnotic pattern, suggestion, etc... Which you are delaying for another level.
Now if you go tome or chain, it's ok.

I'll also just suggest rogue 2/hexblade 11/lore bard 3 . Which may fit your concept better than bard.
The greatsword options only would come into the game if, by any chance, I can put my hands over a ogre gauntlets or something alike. This invocation seems to be able to dish some big damage numbers. It will cost me 2 more warlock levels, but in exchange, it will save me a feat (you don't need a feat to cast spells with a 2 handed sword). But of course, I can't plan all my career around a magic item that may never appear.

About the darkness... I think that you have a point. Also, that spell will totally butcher my party's chances to hit anything on combat. There are better spells around (I just need to cherrypick them :) )


If you're not really feeling the Invocations, I'd say either go Warlock 1 / Bard X, Sorcerer 1 / Bard X, or just straight Bard depending on what you're trying to do with the warlock levels. If it's just to have decent ranged and melee damage options (via eldritch blast and the blade cantrips), then I'd suggest picking up Magic Initiate as your first feat or as a variant human. Going with sorcerer can give you all those cantrips (well, not eldritch blast, but instead your pick of almost-as-good ranged cantrips) as well as the shield spell, and other bonuses (armor, burst flight, occasional advantage, cleric spells) depending on sorcerer subclass.

Every level you delay bard progression will hurt, so if you can go the Magic Initiate route (or Lore Bard L6 Magical Secrets route) to pick up what you really wanted from the Warlock class, instead of multiclassing, I'd say do that.

I think that I can make some alterations, like changing from Warlock 2/ Bard1 to Bard2/warlock 1, but I don't think that I'll be able to shift to sorcerer. The race is fixed too, so I can't take the magic initiate route.
But I suppose that you are right about the delayed magical progression. I had read somewhere that in 5e high casting levels aren't as importants as in past editions, and I simply accepted it without taking a look in detail to the spells (It's a big list, and it takes some time) I need to read them carefully.

I think that I'm going to be a bit conservative with the build for the moment, and I will go hexblade warlock1/bard 2. I can always get more warlock levels in the future, if needed. I have still some time until level 4, so I can make my choice between Lore or Satire without hurry.

BTW that "path to godhood" character concept is great.
Thank you, Sir!! I have another two bard-like characters on other games, and I tried my best to make them different between each other, so playing them doesn't gets boring.
-One is a Skald (viking bard) on a Yggdrasyl game. He was born as the seventh child of a distant Noble Jarl, and is totally a drunk, a scoundrel and a womanizer. He was kicked (literally) from his father's lands because he promised himself in marriage with too many women on different towns, just to start the celebrations, but he always ran away before the weeding. As far as the campaign goes, he is starting to change his behaviour, and assuming his role as a noble in the grand scheme of politics, and may became a good war leader, despite his efforts to avoid all those things.
-The other is a Pathfinder female Bard called Requiem. She had a twin that died days after they were born, and she claims that her sister spirit calls her from the other side (if that is true or she is just a bit mad is something that I left to the gm) She sings opera and burial songs in combat, and fights with a magical intelligent fauchard (a scyte-shaped reach weapon) that sings with her on the battlefield. She makes extensive use of the cantrip spell to make black roses appear around the corpses that she kills. She sometimes talks to the air and wanders around dancing in circles. But I also flavoured some spells, like saying that when she cast mirror image, the images are actually her dead twin, or the fact that when the weapons sings, the voice comes from her dead sister.
The rest of the party members are scared like hell of her. ;)
 
Last edited:

mellored

Legend
Darkness doesn't effect anyone's chance, unless someone has special senses (devil's sight, tremorsense, true sight, blind sight).

You have advantage against those who can't see you, and disadvantages if you can't see them. Which ends up canceling out in most cases. Though it's bad for barbarians, since 1 disadvantage cancels out all advantages.

And to use the smites, you need to use that paticular weapon. There is no reason to take the invocation if your not using the weapon.

As for higher level spells, they are less important than previous editions, but they are still upgrades from lower spells.
 
Last edited:

ccs

41st lv DM
Your GM is wrong - the ability doesn't require a saving throw, and as per RAW - specific trumps general - the eldritch blast with knockback is specific, and the rules on forces and STR saving throws is general.

No, their DM is right.
Maybe not from a RAW stance, but rather just by the fact of being the DM.
The proper order of hierarchy is:

general ---> Specific ---> DM.
 


Caliburn101

Explorer
No, their DM is right.
Maybe not from a RAW stance, but rather just by the fact of being the DM.
The proper order of hierarchy is:

general ---> Specific ---> DM.

The GM changed a core class ability after the game started and the character had already been agreed. The rules do not state anywhere that a GM can ride roughshod over a core class ability and the effected player after the fact in this manner.

Not only that, the GM did it because he/she didn't like the fact the ability was particularly effective in two encounters where the GM decided to put enemies near edges they could easily be pushed over.

It's extremely poor GM'ing in the first instance to fail to realise the supposed 'problem' was actually caused by encounter planning and not the Warlock ability, and even worse practice to flip a core class ability mid-game without consultation with the player.

It's absolutely indefensible, and if I tried to pull such crapola at my table, my players would have every right to tell me to shove it.
 

Antarx

Villager
Darkness doesn't effect anyone's chance, unless someone has special senses (devil's sight, tremor sense, true sight, blind sight).

You have advantage against those who can't see you, and disadvantages if you can't see them. Which ends up cancelling out in most cases. Though it's bad for barbarians, since 1 disadvantage cancels out all advantages.

And to use the smites, you need to use that particular weapon. There is no reason to take the invocation if your not using the weapon.

As for higher level spells, they are less important than previous editions, but they are still upgrades from lower spells.

Well, I was talking about magical darkness, casted on myself in melee . If I remember correctly, almost all the characters on the party are humans (for the bonus feat, I suppose) so they will have disadvantage on melee attacks even in normal darkness, and the ranged characters will be unable to attack creatures within the darkness sphere. Disadvantage for allies and enemies alike, except for me... mmm... well. It's a interesting backup plan, but I'll probably get better final results buffing my party instead on. As you said, there are better spells out there.


Aside all of this, all of this is not (at least, entirely) my dms fault. I don't share my Dm's decision, but I understand it. The rules are (unnecessarily) unclear about some things. Specific trumps general, but nowhere over the invocations descriptions it says that the repelling blast is a specific scenario in terms of saving throws. Also, as my dm says, a single lvl 2 warlock can dismount from his horse another lvl 20 character without any defensive roll (aside of the roll to hit). Or will the invocation move both the rider and the mount? It will be different if the rider rides a magic carpet? Nobody knows for sure, because because he rules are just condensed in 3 poorly defined lines, leaving "everything else" at the GMs hand.
He had the final word about what is supposed to do in those scenarios... and he make his decision. I think that he is wrong, but at least, I can say that he is fair: He changed the rule, and he allowed me to redo my character in consequence. I can accept that.

I believe that WotC is trying to avoid pinching their fingers again with RAW and rules lawyers as in past editions, but, really, It will cost they nothing to add a few lines filling those gaps in the "supposed "or "intended" functioning of all those things.
 
Last edited:

mellored

Legend
Well, I was talking about magical darkness, casted on myself in melee . If I remember correctly, almost all the characters on the party are humans (for the bonus feat, I suppose) so they will have disadvantage on melee attacks even in normal darkness, and the ranged characters will be unable to attack creatures within the darkness sphere. Disadvantage for allies and enemies alike, except for me... mmm... well. It's a interesting backup plan, but I'll probably get better final results buffing my party instead on. As you said, there are better spells out there.
It'd disavantage AND advantage for allies and enemies alike. Which cancel out to nothing.
To reword it...
Creatures with special senses gain advantage to hit, and disadvantage to be hit, against creatures without special senses.
Creatures without special senses cannot gain advantage or disadvantage.



But yes, buffing your allies or disabling enemies could be better. Particularly as a higher level bard who get's a lot of those things. Though it depends on your party.
Also darkness takes an action to cast, and the first round of battle is pretty important.
 
Last edited:

schnee

First Post
"The battle happens near (cool thing)."
"Cool, I use the (cool thing) to achieve (fun thing)!"
*Furiously* YOU CAN'T DO THAT AGAIN!

This is exactly why we got the progressively more defined spatial combat of 3.0->3.5->4.0, and 'rulings not rules' is allowing that annoyance to creep back in.

I hope this doesn't become a pattern. It's hard to find good DMs.
 

Istbor

Dances with Gnolls
"The battle happens near (cool thing)."
"Cool, I use the (cool thing) to achieve (fun thing)!"
*Furiously* YOU CAN'T DO THAT AGAIN!

This is exactly why we got the progressively more defined spatial combat of 3.0->3.5->4.0, and 'rulings not rules' is allowing that annoyance to creep back in.

I hope this doesn't become a pattern. It's hard to find good DMs.

Disagree. I don't think ToTM or more grid tactical play is to blame for this instance at all. I think we can chalk this up to some encounters the DM thought would be challenging, and were made less so by cunning on the players behalf.

I can relate to the frustration of carefully laid plans going up in smoke, but the appropriate response would be to make some encounters that do no contain pit falls, not add in more dice rolls for something that did not have them intended.

Regardless, it isn't even like these types of battles should be that frequent to put a leash on the ability like that.
 

Remove ads

Top