D&D 5E (2014) Blade Pact Warlocks and Conventional Wisdom

[Corwin]

The Blade Lock's problem is quite simple: "It's always better to Eldritch Blast".

This sounds like the argument: The Melee Warrior's problem is quite simple: "It's always better to be an Archer".

 

[Warpiglet]

This sounds like the argument: The Melee Warrior's problem is quite simple: "It's always better to be an Archer".

Right! Except when they are right on top of you! Disadvantage sucks!

I am trying to think through another melee centric warlock via tome pact. I find the many cantrips needed (e.g. green flame, booming blade and shillelagh) are a big use of resources. In fact, it uses almost everything up the pact offers...for less damage than blade pact. On top of that, for more goodies (i.e. rituals) you have to use an invocation. So less damage plus goodies for the same cost--invocation. I dunno. I feel even more confident that blade pact is a good choice for the up close and personal stuff.

I am thinking more in line with shocking grasp or sacred flame perhaps with hex. In the first case, you are really likely to hit armored opponents and make good use of hex. Otherwise, I am still favoring blade pact for up close fighting. Tome lock just does not compare with GWM and a greatsword...but it has other goodies. Pretty subjective.

So again I am struck by how much blade pact gets maligned...

 

[Corwin]

Right! Except when they are right on top of you! Disadvantage sucks!

Which is true of EB as well, of course....

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This sounds like the argument: The Melee Warrior's problem is quite simple: "It's always better to be an Archer".

And in a flat, open field, with allies that keep things off you, it is always better to be an archer.

But I rarely give my players such conditions, unless they do some planning and work to make it happen. Even then, some terrain is gonna show up. Sometimes as a result of the magic being thrown around.

Even then, why would a player that wants to play a gish spend their time shooting a ranger spell rather than attacking with their weapon? It's not a big difference, and the game doesn't need you to optimize, especially DPR optimization!

 

[Warpiglet]

And in a flat, open field, with allies that keep things off you, it is always better to be an archer.

But I rarely give my players such conditions, unless they do some planning and work to make it happen. Even then, some terrain is gonna show up. Sometimes as a result of the magic being thrown around.

Even then, why would a player that wants to play a gish spend their time shooting a ranger spell rather than attacking with their weapon? It's not a big difference, and the game doesn't need you to optimize, especially DPR optimization!

This is where I am coming from. I just reunited the clans and old friends are letting their kids play. We have 8 players! It is like a squad and you can have lines. EB all day if you are into that.

But usually it is just me and two others...it is hard to get a good group together. In those cases, I am wondering how do I merely stay back and fire? Can one fighter keep us all clear to shoot? It is as if the reality of actual game combats get lost to mere number crunching.

Mind you, I am not above seeing what I can do...but I think many get scared away from blade pact unnecessarily. There are many "musts" including pumping up eldritch blast. I might, but I might not. With my greatsword, I do just fine in the world of damage...I must only do what I want!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is where I am coming from. I just reunited the clans and old friends are letting their kids play. We have 8 players! It is like a squad and you can have lines. EB all day if you are into that.

But usually it is just me and two others...it is hard to get a good group together. In those cases, I am wondering how do I merely stay back and fire? Can one fighter keep us all clear to shoot? It is as if the reality of actual game combats get lost to mere number crunching.

Mind you, I am not above seeing what I can do...but I think many get scared away from blade pact unnecessarily. There are many "musts" including pumping up eldritch blast. I might, but I might not. With my greatsword, I do just fine in the world of damage...I must only do what I want!

Yep.

The game is flexible. People really should try to enjoy that, rather than worrying about CharOp, imo.

 

[Warpiglet]

Yep.

The game is flexible. People really should try to enjoy that, rather than worrying about CharOp, imo.

That is the thing. I do not like ineffectual characters but reflected back with as clear a mind as I could and realized the most thrills and fun were had when I played a character I liked. All were capable and I love to roll dice and fight! But I have found worrying about optimization exclusively gets old for me quickly.

With the blade pact, I think there is a lot of fun to be had and it is a shame if people get scared away from having the image and fun they want due to legitimate concerns that become prohibitions more than informative bits of game knowledge.

I am getting back to the fun of my youth. I have said it before--we played rogues with 19 ThACO at fifth level. Could not hit the broad side of the barn but damn what a fun challenge! (and no, I do not want to play weak characters!).

 

[RonLugge]

This sounds like the argument: The Melee Warrior's problem is quite simple: "It's always better to be an Archer".

Except it doesn't really work that way.

If you build up your character with a high strength, great weapon fighting style, and possibly some supporting feats like Great Weapon Master, you really want to be in close, and being at a distance sucks. At range, you're stuck with a javelin that you can only attack once with, or worse a longbow that you don't have the stats to use effectively. Even if you're a dex-based fighter, the loss of your fighting style can be a nuisance on the best of days. And in reverse, a ranged fighter really doesn't want to have to deal with melee combat, since he's built around being at a distance.

Whereas a warlock can usually get comparable (not identical) damage just by backing off and using eldritch blast, with less resource use. I developed a homebrewery document with some interesting charts that helped recast the entire discussion for me personally. (See document for full discussion / new invocations) I still need to add some AC / HP charts, but figuring out how to do those effectively is an uphill battle filled with even more guesswork and fill-in-the-blanks than the data I've already done. What's interesting is that, contrary to emotional expectations, blade pact warlocks can keep up on the damage output level. But they do it, in large part, by spending their resources on hex and the relevant invocations. At the cost of a single invocation, the blastlock has incredible damage output -- probably the best at-will damage in the game once you add in hex.

The underlying problem with the bladelock is that the pact option is making promises it can't support on it's own. The Pact of the Tome gives you some extra spell casting power via cantrips, and the ability to get rituals via an invocation. The Pact of the Chain gives you a familiar, who becomes even more awesome via an invocation. Pact of the Blade gives you the ability to be functional in melee... and costs you an invocation to maintain melee relevance in T2, and another to maintain relevance in T3. But it only does this if you also pay in the necessary ASIs, by requiring you to max dexterity.

You wind up pulled in too many directions at once. You really want/need Resilient(Con) & Warcaster to maintain concentration on Hex, since that's how you stay within shouting distance of the fighters with their FS options, which pushes you further back on dex... you need the dex to stay relevant in combat, since damage matters nothing if you can't hit, and it also increases your accuracy... you need charisma to keep your spellcasting abilities up (on the rare occasions you aren't spending them on hex and armor of agathys)...

Mechanically, you have to put a lot more work into a bladelock to make him work than a blastlock. That's OK on some levels, since you're pushing the edges of the narrative space of the class. But it's not OK on others, because you have a class option hanging around acting as a trap. It implies that this is part of the warlock's natural narrative space, and the class design should either support that, or the option should have been rejected.

 

[Corwin]

Except it doesn't really work that way.

Only when you play Schrodinger's Warrior games. You responded as if I was arguing that a high strength/low dexterity character was better off picking up a bow. Sorry, nothing like the point at all. So the rest of your post, as it pertains to my quote, is pretty moot, IMO.

 

[RonLugge]

Only when you play Schrodinger's Warrior games. You responded as if I was arguing that a high strength/low dexterity character was better off picking up a bow. Sorry, nothing like the point at all. So the rest of your post, as it pertains to my quote, is pretty moot, IMO.

Then I'm going to have to ask you to make your point clearer. Was it the general desirability of ranged combat over melee from a survival perspective?