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

[mellored]

Shield can be gotten with the with moderate armored feat, possibly with variant human.

You also need to factor in the -5 to-hit for GWM. That damage isn't free. You also have less Cha for spells and less invocations. Though I agree a dwarf GWM + polearm build works ok. It still would be good if you didn't need to be a specific race with a specific fighting style.

You shouldn't wholly discount the secondary damage of booming blade. Plus you have an extra feat for say... resilient Con so you can keep darkness running, or warcaster to make big OAs. And all the rituals.

 

[neogod22]

You would still need Warcaster to be able to cast with a shield. I understand the -5 penalty, but at that level, it shouldn't be an issue. I am also well aware of my low CHA, and that's OK, because most of the spells I cast are either in myself or don't require saves. That was a point on my original post. PotB are for people who want to focus primarily on melee. If you want to throw EB all day, choose another pact, this one isn't suited for you.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Prism]

You would still need Warcaster to be able to cast with a shield.

Warcaster doesn't always help with casting with a shield when you also have material components to deal with. Best free option is just to put your weapon away when you cast a spell. For the other main benefit of warcaster i'd rather take resilient (constitution). Leave warcaster for clerics and paladins.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Sorry for not playing the game the right way.

It's ok, nobody's perfect.

It has a massive influence because the game is designed around combat and the design of the combat system promotes damage as the most effective means of succeeding in an encounter. Furthermore, there is a significant difference in power between sub-classes. This becomes exceedingly noticeable right at the very beginning of a character's progression and only ever gets worse throughout its career. Criticising people for wanting to lift a certain concept up to the levels of these premium builds really isn't very helpful or constructive, especially when all they want is for the playing field to be equal.

(1) The game is NOT designed around combat. It's designed around Combat, Exploration, and Role-Playing...with a glue of "use your imagination and make up by playing 'lets pretend'".

(2) Your points about "significant difference in power" between subclasses and leveling seems to be only correct/applicable in the context of Combat. Out of that, which is, by design, about 66% of the game...the 'combat discrepancies' are moot. A heavily armed and armored fighter sucks balls when he has to run from the law, climb the city wall, and swim across the river to safety where the horses are waiting. You know, all that other stuff that goes on between combat encounters.

(3) Criticizing people for wanting to play a combat focused game is, well, criticizing. But with 5e, I see the same stumbling blocks of virtually all the "combat optimizers" out there; 5e isn't 3.x/PF/4e. Trying to come into 5e with the assumption that all classes are balanced (or even should be balanced) equally with regard to Combat is basically starting with the wrong question. With the HUGE step towards DM adjudication and player<-->DM cooperation, simply having some particular bonus, feat, or ability on your sheet does NOT mean it will be used that way all the time. In fact, I'd say that most 5e DM's more often than not will simply "modify" some particular feat/ability/spell if the situation deems it makes sense. For example, a player asking if he can pick out the best weighted longsword may point to his characters Weapon Master Feat for why his sorcerer should have a chance to do that. Is that by the book? Nope. Does it make cool, narrative sense from a character perspective? Absolutely.

Anyway, my point was that "Combat equality being required" is, thankfully, a thing of the past...at least IMHO. Obviously you and those other folks who focus on combat as the 'core' of their campaign think differently; not a bad thing, but, as I said, there are better games to give/handle that style of game more so than 5e's loosey-goosey "rulings not rules" and "Three Pillars of Play" design.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[neogod22]

Warcaster doesn't always help with casting with a shield when you also have material components to deal with. Best free option is just to put your weapon away when you cast a spell. For the other main benefit of warcaster i'd rather take resilient (constitution). Leave warcaster for clerics and paladins.

Look up spell casting in the PHB pg 203. It specifically states you need a free hand to cast spells that require somatic and material components, which is why if you want to equip a shield, you need the Warcaster feat.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[neogod22]

The same goes for dual wielding, if you don't have Warcaster, you won't be able to cast the majority of your spells.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Prism]

Look up spell casting in the PHB pg 203. It specifically states you need a free hand to cast spells that require somatic and material components, which is why if you want to equip a shield, you need the Warcaster feat.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

And Warcaster removes the need for a free hand when casting spells with somatic components but does not help with spells that also have a material component - which is a lot of combat spells that you still cant cast even with Warcaster.

If you want to cast a spell put your weapon away - you don't need a feat for that

 

[neogod22]

And Warcaster removes the need for a free hand when casting spells with somatic components but does not help with spells that also have a material component - which is a lot of combat spells that you still cant cast even with Warcaster.

If you want to cast a spell put your weapon away - you don't need a feat for that

Actually, most warlock spells DON'T need material components, but the majority needs somatic. You can drop a weapon in combat as an object interaction, but depending on your DMX, properly storing a weapon might take an action. That's how the DMs here generally rule it.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[Prism]

Actually, most warlock spells DON'T need material components, but the majority needs somatic. You can drop a weapon in combat as an object interaction, but depending on your DMX, properly storing a weapon might take an action. That's how the DMs here generally rule it.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

Plenty of the warlock spells do require material components. I'm playing a warlock and many do - armour of agathys, witch bolt, invisibility, hex, protection from evil to name a few. To pick on the most obvious, warcaster does not let you cast hex in combat while using a weapon and shield or two weapons.

The phb gives a specific example of sheathing a sword as an interaction so I would say a DM ignoring that is being a bit harsh. Dropping a weapon is arguably not an action at all and so you could use your interaction to pick up the weapon after casting the spell.

 

[mellored]

You would still need Warcaster to be able to cast with a shield. I understand the -5 penalty, but at that level, it shouldn't be an issue.

why would it not be an issue?

If you have a base 70% chance to hit, with advantage you hit 91% of the time. With -5 and advantage it's 69.75%

So a tomelock would have 16.835 for primary, or 29.12 it moves.
A GW bladelock would have 33.48 DPR
EB will have 28.665

Still worthwhile, but not as big as you make it out to be, and not without sacrifices.