D&D 5E Warlock One of the More Complicated 5E classes?

[Guest 6801328]

IMO, this is not only irrelevant to the point you are trying to make, it muddies it in the trying. What does druids and poison spray have to do with your assertion that warlocks need not only take EB, but AB to go with it.

I think he was saying that a warlock using poison spray as his damage filler is metaphorically pretending to be a druid, but badly. He wasn't comparing a non-EB warlock to a PS-spamming druid. If that makes sense.

Good lord did I just defend Zard?

 

[feartheminotaur]

I was a little confused here, since the [MENTION=6691635]Zard[/MENTION]narr and [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] call and response strayed from the usual formula - this thread is the Warlock sans eldritch blast: viable, but not what you usually see...

In response to the last thought of the original post: I don't think "complex" is the word your looking for, but rather "flexible". Doubly so if you're willing to make some tweaks to the RAW. Yes, the warlock makes a great template for a great many classes. I've seen it used to approximate the warlord (eh), battlemind (eldritch knight is better, esp. w/ SCAG) and the psion (pretty well) in 4e to 5e conversions.

I play a lot of bladelocks, and you can do a lot of things, but they aren't more complex than any other class in terms of build or play. Unless you mean "complex" in the sense of "hard to think outside the CharOp box".

 

[Zardnaar]

I do not really regard a warlock taking EB+hex as optimising anymore more than say a fighter going strength or dex based or a player taking Great Weapon Master/ShieldMaster/Sharpshooter. Its just such a basic thing I do not regard it is min/maxing or whatever. Paladins and Rangers using Hunters Quarry would be another example.

Dipping 2-3 levels in Warlock and MCing as a Sorcerer (Or Sorc 1/War2/Sorc XYZ) or marrying GWM+Polearm Master or SS+Crossbow expert I regard as min/maxing. In my games I do not expect PCs to build the most powerful build they can just not wander around with a 12 in your primary attack stat (which I have seen happen).

 

[Tony Vargas]

In response to the last thought of the original post: I don't think "complex" is the word your looking for, but rather "flexible".

A good point. Complexity is sometimes used as short hand for a what a class is lacking (options, flexibility, versatility, customization, etc), but complexity, itself is undesirable. Some classes pay a price in complexity to get the goods, others might pay a price in anything from customization to viability in return for desirable simplicity.

Aaron also has a good point, there's a big difference between build complexity and in-play complexity. The former a DM can erase by using pregens, for instance. A class can even have high build complexity that allows you to create a range of different play complexities, as desired.

And, of course, complexity is a continuum. The Warlock is not a simple PC option compared the Champion Fighter, or even BM - probably even EK. It's presumably less complicated than a Druid or Wizard.

 

[Ancalagon]

The complexity of the build: One of the thing with making a "good" warlock challenging is that you have limited options in spells/invocation choices to make this happen. You have to have some kind of way to attack, hopefully some kind of defensive capacity to protect yourself, and then that leaves very little to have the capacity to do other things that are useful *and* fun. Getting synergies isn't too difficult, but becomes challenging when you have the above-noted constraints.

If you are a wizard and you learned 5 attacks spells... well you can always learn more spells to round out your character. If you are a warlock, each choice is precious and has to be made wisely.

 

[LapBandit]

A bit tangential but I'll just throw it out there: I think Lifedrinker should be available at 7th level. If you're that dedicated to playing Pact of the Blade they need a bit of a boost around then.

 

[Li Shenron]

I haven't seen a Warlock in play so I can't really say anything reliable about that... except that to me on paper it looks more or less about the same complexity as Wizard or Sorcerer.

I also did not have the impression that the Sorcerer is simpler than a Wizard... it might seem that a Wizard is more complicated because each day you have to choose the prepared spells, but IMXP most Wizard players keep something like 80% of their spell list fixed, and experiment with the remaining 20% or adapt to forecasts. IMHO a bigger complication I've seen in practice for Wizards, is to always keep an eye on what spells can be cast as ritual to save daily slots if you're not in a rush. It's something that still gets forgotten frequently at our table. OTOH a Sorcerer (who doesn't cast rituals) has a not so easy choice with the spell points, between extra daily slots and metamagic.

It's hard to tell because (a lot) more spells known to the Wizard make them more flexible and thus complicates the choice of which spells to prepare, while on the other hand Sorcerers have to be more careful about which spells they learn (tho this is difficulty rather than complexity).

 

[Azurewraith]

What's so hard about picking a pact(any will do they all have there perks) EB(come on it has the biggest damge die and scales anyone not picking it is doing it for rp reasons which is fine) then pick the two invocations that buff said eb(same way a twf will pocks up dw fighting style). Then sit back and spam EB all day every day. Seems simple to me.

Now blade locks are a bit different but then 2out of 3 subclasses can just spam eb doesn't seem to complex to me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[spectacle]

You can either take the "ez" Warlock (EB + invocations), in which case you'd say- "Look, I happen to play a class with, pretty much, the best attack cantrip + the best additional features for that, so why am I complaining?" Or you can *not* do that, and cycle through really interesting options.

More simply- you can either take "default" warlock, or build one of a number of interesting ones.

Or you can do neither. Don't take EB, Hex and the associated invocations, instead pick spells and invocation with little though on how you are going to use them.

You certainly don't need EB to play an effective warlock in 5e, but if you don't know what you're doing then it's easy to end up with a character that is just plain bad, with very few mechanical options to contribute both in and out of combat compared to other casters.