Optimize a single class warlock

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Don't forget Elven Accuracy can also give a +1 CHA, so if you're half-elf and planned for it, you probably started with 17 CHA, to 18 with EA.

Not saying I disagree with your bottom line, but taking elven accuracy usually won't cost you a boost to your main stat; tertiary or quaternary(?) stat maybe.

As for how to get advantage, presumably using devils sight and darkness a whole lot.

Or better, shadow of moil.

Spot on with elven accuracy. I always forget it adds a stat.

Darkness and shadow of moil have a major opportunity cost of your first action in many combats. Giving up your first action in 3-4 round fights is not what I would call optimization. Nice for when you can prebuff though, but your putting a lot of eggs into the get good at combat basket. It's like there's now almost no eggs left to put in any other baskets. (I know you agree but this is also for everyone else).

Besides, isn't using one major control spell and eldtrich blast with agonizing blast going to have a greater effect on combat?

In addition you leave invocations and pact and feats open for out of combat uses. That seems like the more optimized warlock to me.

I'm still not sure it's actually better at anything than a sorcerer (except in tier 1 play). However, it's probably close enough in power level while also offering ritual casting (familiars etc can be fairly useful as well)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I wouldn't go that far. Melee advantage when your charisma based and aren't causing it yourself isn't common in my games. Spells or prone are typically the only way to proc it and even then most of the better combat spells don't cause it. If anything you'll be likely to have it in easy fights and less likely to have it in hard fights IMO - which is the exact opposite of what you would prefer.
Depends on party composition, really. We had an open hand monk in the party, so prone and stunned enemies were extremely common. And it would be more common on boss fights, since the monk would burn 5 ki a round if necessary to get the stun to stick.

In the right party though it can be devastating, as some partys nearly always generate advantage - though it's still costing those other PC's resources to generate said advantage that they may could have used to do something just as effective. Anyways, at this point you need presumably 3 feats, which means by level 12 you've still not maxed your charisma and so you pretty much suck when you don't have advantage (because 16 cha isn't really enough to make use of the -5/+10 feature against most enemies). It also means you didn't take the actor feat (or if you did then you did so at the expense of those other feats or your charisma).
Personally, I only took EA and GWM. PAM is a boost, of course, but I found triple advantage attacks, especially combined with hexblade curse, caused enough crits and takedowns to fill up a large number of available bonus actions. And as others mentioned, EA gives you a level 4 Cha 18 that's useful for both melee attacks and eldritch blast.



How though? If you really took elven accuracy, GWM and polearm mastery and the extra attack invocation and the invocation that lets you use a great weapon with the hexblade ability. you presumably only have 16 cha, 2-3 invocation slots open (1 for most of the game), no notable out of combat abilities etc.
Pact of the Blade lets you use great weapons with Hexblade, no invocation needed. Invocations are a little tight, but as you mentioned above, none of them are so amazing that they're must takes. I had AB, the extra attack one, the one that treats your weapon as a +1 (because when the game ended at 11 I still had never found a magic weapon, lol), Tomb of Levistus, and Devil Sight.

I guess you have 2-3 short rest recharging spells per day. What are you using them for?
Whatever's needed, really. AoA against weaker minions where it should proc a couple of times before going down. SoM if I really needed some defense and advantage. Synaptic static or thunder leap if I needed AoE. Counterspell, of course. I had a few other spells (hypnotic pattern, enemies abound, some other filler), but they came up fairly infrequently.

I really don't see what he's doing at a B+ level besides melee when allies grace you with advantage.
Depends on your metrics, I guess.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Depends on party composition, really. We had an open hand monk in the party, so prone and stunned enemies were extremely common. And it would be more common on boss fights, since the monk would burn 5 ki a round if necessary to get the stun to stick.

Agree, open hand monks have that effect. They are melee advantage machines. Great build if you know one of them will be in your party!

Personally, I only took EA and GWM. PAM is a boost, of course, but I found triple advantage attacks, especially combined with hexblade curse, caused enough crits and takedowns to fill up a large number of available bonus actions. And as others mentioned, EA gives you a level 4 Cha 18 that's useful for both melee attacks and eldritch blast.

I can see that, especially with the monk in the party.

Pact of the Blade lets you use great weapons with Hexblade, no invocation needed. Invocations are a little tight, but as you mentioned above, none of them are so amazing that they're must takes. I had AB, the extra attack one, the one that treats your weapon as a +1 (because when the game ended at 11 I still had never found a magic weapon, lol), Tomb of Levistus, and Devil Sight.

The +1 weapon invocation is just like a +2 ASI with the added benefit of a magic weapon - which while typically not always important, apparently was very much in your game.

Whatever's needed, really. AoA against weaker minions where it should proc a couple of times before going down. SoM if I really needed some defense and advantage. Synaptic static or thunder leap if I needed AoE. Counterspell, of course. I had a few other spells (hypnotic pattern, enemies abound, some other filler), but they came up fairly infrequently.

Keeping the slots open for counterspell is something I hadn't considered. I like the ability of your meleelock to do that. The caster locks need them for their own combat spells to much. That's a huge+ to yours. The ability to fall back to ranged is nice, or to start a fight at range with a big control spell. I would be afraid to use one in melee due to concentration.

Depends on your metrics, I guess.

I'd say for your particular game nothing would have worked better than the warlock for melee. I don't think your game is typical. I wonder how your warlock would have fared with a spear/staff and a shield and PAM instead of GWM? Or that may interfere to much with counterspell.
 

Esker

Hero
Besides, isn't using one major control spell and eldtrich blast with agonizing blast going to have a greater effect on combat?

In addition you leave invocations and pact and feats open for out of combat uses. That seems like the more optimized warlock to me.

Yeah. If I'm building for weapon damage, I'm hard-pressed to think of a case where I'd build a single-classed caster, tbh. As a straight caster, at most I might put some light investment into being able to hold my own in melee once my big spell (which is my real contribution) is up.
 

Esker

Hero
Keeping the slots open for counterspell is something I hadn't considered. I like the ability of your meleelock to do that. The caster locks need them for their own combat spells to much. That's a huge+ to yours. The ability to fall back to ranged is nice, or to start a fight at range with a big control spell. I would be afraid to use one in melee due to concentration.

Although in a big battle against a caster, two counterspells is likely not enough. If you don't have a wizard, or a sorcerer (or a lore bard / any bard post 10th) in the party to handle counterspell duties (or I guess if you want a backup counterspeller when the main one's reaction is used up) then it's nice that you can do it (and I agree that it's easier for this build than another warlock) but it's not ideal, exactly. At least counterspell takes advantage of your slots being higher level.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Although in a big battle against a caster, two counterspells is likely not enough. If you don't have a wizard, or a sorcerer (or a lore bard / any bard post 10th) in the party to handle counterspell duties (or I guess if you want a backup counterspeller when the main one's reaction is used up) then it's nice that you can do it (and I agree that it's easier for this build than another warlock) but it's not ideal, exactly. At least counterspell takes advantage of your slots being higher level.

Many enemies can cast fireball etc without having counterspell. Even in a big caster battle it won't be "easy" for your counterspell to be counterspelled considering the spell level it will be cast at. And if the enemy caster uses a high spell level resource to do so then it's still a win as that's one less big spell he potentially gets to cast at the group.
 

Esker

Hero
Many enemies can cast fireball etc without having counterspell. Even in a big caster battle it won't be "easy" for your counterspell to be counterspelled considering the spell level it will be cast at. And if the enemy caster uses a high spell level resource to do so then it's still a win as that's one less big spell he potentially gets to cast at the group.

Yeah, I wasn't so much thinking about counterspell duels as wanting to be able to counter more than two spells. But there's also that. My main point is that if there is also a wizard or sorcerer in the party,if you were going to pick you or them to have counterspell, it's probably better for it to be them. I can think of a couple times DMing where I had one or two casters going up against a relatively high level party (I think the two occasions I have in mind were both tier 3), and they went through four or five counterspells in one encounter.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Agree, open hand monks have that effect. They are melee advantage machines. Great build if you know one of them will be in your party!
Yea, the warlock was a replacement character, so I already had a pretty good sense of what would synergize strongly. But I think we all know that optimizing to your specific party and DM is the first rule of practical optimization.

The +1 weapon invocation is just like a +2 ASI with the added benefit of a magic weapon - which while typically not always important, apparently was very much in your game.
Sure. I was preparing to drop it as soon as I got a magic weapon, it just never actually.... happened. (Thanks, DM!) Situational swapping of invocations and spells known is just part of the fun, to my mind. It's one of the reasons I like the limited spells known for a sorcerer, the restrictions provide a greater play challenge. The limited spell slots of the warlock provide a similar play challenge.

Keeping the slots open for counterspell is something I hadn't considered. I like the ability of your meleelock to do that. The caster locks need them for their own combat spells to much. That's a huge+ to yours. The ability to fall back to ranged is nice, or to start a fight at range with a big control spell. I would be afraid to use one in melee due to concentration.
Yea, the issue with concentration spells is a big deal, and why I wouldn't consider this build truly optimized. Wasting an open concentration slot when you're an (almost) full caster sucks, but it's hard to justify risking it when you're in melee, only have 2-3 slots, and don't have Con save proficiency or War Caster.


I'd say for your particular game nothing would have worked better than the warlock for melee. I don't think your game is typical. I wonder how your warlock would have fared with a spear/staff and a shield and PAM instead of GWM? Or that may interfere to much with counterspell.
Probably pretty well. If I was going PAM and staff/shield, I'd probably swap to VHuman, and that would open up 2 feat slots. One of those could be War Caster, which would make using Hex a lot easier. 3 attacks with Hex, Lifedrinker at 12 and Hexblade Curse is pretty solid damage. (2x(2d6+14)+1d4+1d6+14 at level 12, assuming you use ASIs to bump Cha to 20). That's probably better damage in a non-advantage situation, although I think EA/GWM might win out when advantage is there. (Can't run the numbers right this second.)
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Yeah, I wasn't so much thinking about counterspell duels as wanting to be able to counter more than two spells. But there's also that. My main point is that if there is also a wizard or sorcerer in the party,if you were going to pick you or them to have counterspell, it's probably better for it to be them. I can think of a couple times DMing where I had one or two casters going up against a relatively high level party (I think the two occasions I have in mind were both tier 3), and they went through four or five counterspells in one encounter.
That's interesting, because to my mind, I'd rather have the warlock do it. Auto-upcast, the warlock doesn't have as many high-leverage spells as the sorc/wiz, and burning a short rest resource rather than a long.

I mean, ideally, if you have a sorc/wiz and a warlock, I'd rather see both of them have it. But that might be because I've been hit by high level casters too many times. :)
 

Esker

Hero
That's interesting, because to my mind, I'd rather have the warlock do it. Auto-upcast, the warlock doesn't have as many high-leverage spells as the sorc/wiz, and burning a short rest resource rather than a long.

I mean, ideally, if you have a sorc/wiz and a warlock, I'd rather see both of them have it. But that might be because I've been hit by high level casters too many times. :)

The auto-upcast helps if and only if the spell you're countering is 4th or 5th level, otherwise it's inefficient; though if you don't get a way of identifying the spell before countering it, then the other casters have to guess what slot level to use anyway. This is one of those things that depends on the DM; there are suggested rules for ID-ing spells in XGtE, but I don't know how many people use them.

The bigger part of the argument against warlock being the primary counterspeller for me is that they are set up to spread their spells evenly throughout the day, which to me means about one spell per encounter for most of their career. Counterspell is one of those spells where most encounters you don't need it, but when you do need it, you might need it a bunch of rounds in a row. Regular-slot casters have the ability to use their spells unevenly if the situation demands it, whereas warlocks can't.

At 5th and 6th level the warlock has the advantage, since regular casters only have 2 or 3 3rd level slots anyway. But by tier 3, they get seven or eight slots between 3rd and 5th level, and so blowing 4 of those in a single mage encounter is not unreasonable.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top