D&D 5E Warlock, Pact of the Blade, Melee

[brehobit]

I play a barbarian 1/warlock X build. Gives medium armor prof. and rage. Plus an AC boost when without armor. Human with polearm feat. With pact of blade is a solid melee combatant, has good spells (fireball, hex, armor or Ag????) and is a solid ranged combatant (E. Blast).

AC isn't great as couldn't get Dex over 12. Other big problem is can't keep hex up when raging.

But I like the character and find that the armor of Ag??? and raging are a very very nice combo once you have 3rd level spell slots (watch a creature make 3 attacks for 12 damage each--they take 45 damage, no save, you get 3 real damage).

 

[LoneDM]

The problem is you only get one pact weapon, and you are proficient with neither medium/heavy armor nor shields nor martial weapons. That puts obstacles in the way of any of the three standard approaches to melee. Only one pact weapon and no martial weapon proficiency means your two-weapon fighting is limited to a dagger in the off hand, and it doesn't get any of your pact weapon benefits.

It doesn't matter if you are proficient in the weapon. You automatically are proficient with your pact weapon.

 

[Dausuul]

It doesn't matter if you are proficient in the weapon. You automatically are proficient with your pact weapon.

You only get one pact weapon. The weapon in your off hand is not your pact weapon, so you are not automatically proficient with it.

 

[holyground]

if the weapon is the same type as the pact weapon, how does the proficiency not transfer? I am proficient with a short sword, but only this magical one?

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

if the weapon is the same type as the pact weapon, how does the proficiency not transfer? I am proficient with a short sword, but only this magical one?

Because "magic" that's why. Your warlock has a mystical connection to his or her pact blade, which he does NOT have with any other weapon, even if it looks identical.

 

[mgchu]

Hi everyone, I am new here, but as I found this good guide in the net I wanted to point some details (forgive my poor english please).

I always wanted to use the pact blade, but each time I try to make a potential warlock, it fails. If it were not for the romanticism of using its magical pact weapon.

the tome pact is like you said, a bit of everything (with shilellagh, and find familiar).

the Chain Pact, combined with the great old one master, gives a couple of Voice only spells that are worth considering (i.e. dissonant whispers). Because with "voice of the chain" invocation you can cast it from the familiar (it says it can speak in your own voice). and that...in any place of the plane. wow. This together with the undying (the familiar can be summoned again) made as limit its power, because one the one hand, the familiar (imp invisible for example) was playing more than the whole party. and on the second because at low levels, the familiar was more powerfull than the warlok (at least, after my awful rolls).

for the pact, I thought about a multiclass. That was the best option (fighter LV3; couple of maneuvers). But the thread describes this subject quite well. I just wanted to point out the chain thing.

cheers

 

[ZickZak]

The thread is over a year old. Blade is good if you have NO magic weapons in your campaign. Thats it.

Just because your familiar can talk doesn't mean you can cast non-touch spells through it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I sense a great disturbance in the game... as though millions of multiclassed warlock builds cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

Yes, this is a big change, and can't be called simply a clarification.

Before it was 100% RAW that warlock multiclassing kept rising in power, and after this full reversal and errata, it isn't anymore.

That's much more than explaining your "intent", Wotc!

Even if you meant this all along, the fact is that you accidentally wrote the rules to unambiguously support warlock multiclassing, and now you need to change that.

Shame I only get to read it in a old dug up thread...

It makes me wonder: you with extensive Warlock experience, was this absolutely necessary? How much is actually broken if I do not break the news to my warlock player and he later on branches out into another class?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, this is a big change, and can't be called simply a clarification.

Before it was 100% RAW that warlock multiclassing kept rising in power, and after this full reversal and errata, it isn't anymore.

That's much more than explaining your "intent", Wotc!

Even if you meant this all along, the fact is that you accidentally wrote the rules to unambiguously support warlock multiclassing, and now you need to change that.

I...well, I'm about as far as one can get from being a 5e apologist, as I'm sure you're aware by now. But I really can't agree with you on this one. The books left it very ambiguous--for example, the whole "gaining/retraining invocations" section exclusively talks about how you acquire this stuff via taking levels in Warlock, but the prerequisites listed in the actual Invocations section only say level. Their intent here is not clearly discernible.

Personally, I think it's really not a big deal--despite claims to the contrary, I think multiclassing without a specific 'plan of attack' is generally inadvisable. The single most exploitative thing I can think of is going Fighter 11/Warlock 3 and picking up Lifedrinker; Thirsting Blade is useless because you already have two extra attacks and they very clearly don't stack, and Lifedrinker requires the Blade pact which you can't get until Warlock 3 anyway. All that effort goes into...getting you +Cha to your attacks, and two first-level spells per short rest. Forgive me for being underwhelmed.

 

[Mirtek]

In summary: bladelock needs an extra attack to compete with blastlock. Whether from polearm master or using two weapons, otherwise even lifedrinker doesn't cut it