D&D 5E Blade Pact Warlocks and Conventional Wisdom

[Mephista]

I think it is still a good option as long as you do not pretend to be a fighter. Play them like a warlock

Define "be a fighter." Define "like a warlock." Because if that's code for "don't be a melee gish," then we'll have to disagree on that.

 

[Corwin]

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?

Did you see the post I was responding to? It was more of the same kind of Schrodinger's Build stuff you came in with. If the warlock is spending their invocations on EB enhancers, of course its the better choice to EB. Duh. But If I build a bladelock, without any EB enhancing invocations, how can it still always be better to use EB? That's just plain silly.

Also, your previous post read, to me at least, like the kind of CharOp we saw in the previous couple editions. Again, maybe just my take. But I don't put much stock in such things for 5e, sorry. I know I'm not alone in that regard, either. Also, there's a great CharOp sub-forum for discussing the kind of "extensive analysis" you seem to be into. Which is cool.

 

[Leo Giorni Nocchi]

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.

The point is simple; the Fighter is a STR based class. Being an Archer gives you the range advantage but penalizes you in other mechanics (such as using a 1d8 weapon and not being able to wear a Full Plate). The Warlock is a CHA based class, which means building around "a blade" goes against his nature! You're giving up you range advantage and getting almost nothing in return!

I used the phrase "It's always better to Eldritch Blast" not to be literal; but because our Blade Lock built around a Greatsword was most of his time using Eldritch Blast and staying at range.

 

[Warpiglet]

Define "be a fighter." Define "like a warlock." Because if that's code for "don't be a melee gish," then we'll have to disagree on that.

Nope, not what I intended.

I think they are viable and excellent and do well in melee. However, they may want to prep more and consider rushing in more carefully than a fighter might. They may drop a good spell before doing so for example.

Most of the objections to blade pact warlock that I have noted hinge on 1:1 comparison with fighters without considering their other abilities.

But more to the point: I see many people say that a blade pact warlock is not very survivable but I don't see similar complaints about chain or tome lock. So my question is: how are they suddenly less survivable by strapping some melee option on them?

That is actually what I was getting at. But for me, I play in your face with blade pact and have not had a big problem. Maybe it will happen at higher levels. I do not see an indication of that at this time however.

 

[Corwin]

The point is simple; the Fighter is a STR based class.

No. It isn't.

Being an Archer gives you the range advantage but penalizes you in other mechanics (such as using a 1d8 weapon and not being able to wear a Full Plate).

And gives you other advantages. And why can't an archer wear a Full Plate?

The Warlock is a CHA based class, which means building around "a blade" goes against his nature!

What nature? Why can't they use a blade?

You're giving up you range advantage and getting almost nothing in return!

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see the same things you are seeing.

I used the phrase "It's always better to Eldritch Blast" not to be literal; but because our Blade Lock built around a Greatsword was most of his time using Eldritch Blast and staying at range.

Wow, that's odd. I wonder what all contributed to this belief, and subsequent changes in behavior. Did the player, perhaps in hindsight, actually just prefer being a blastlock and not tell anyone they had made a choice counter to their preferences? Because I can't imagine such a drastic misalignment happening at our table.

 

[Warpiglet]

I will share my recent build. Its point buy.

I am a variant human with moderately armored. My stats:

16, 12, 13, 10, 8, 16 to start. I am using a mace and shield for AC 17. My first invocations are misty visions and fiendish vigor for a few more hit points during the delicate levels.

I will take GWM as 4th which will take my third invocation. I am torn between devil's sight and mask of many faces to go along with misty visions. For cantrips I have eldritch blast and Minor illusion.

I should do better with weapons than with EB. I can use the nice d10 EB at range and then perhaps with Armor of Amathys close to fight. Where able I will use illusions to avoid fights and misdirect. I dunno...seems like a fine way to go. I could also go with misty visions (I am partial to it) and Repelling or agonizing blast as well as Devil's sight. Hard to choose. Just wish I had one more invocation.

However, this does better than a tome pact or chain pact at close quarters fighting. I could still empower EB to be effective at range and melee.

Clearly, if you are usually going to have the option of being protected and at a distance, EB would be superior. In close fighting, I would rather have GWM an be unshackled from disadvantage. I really don't think it to be inferior.

 

[RonLugge]

Did you see the post I was responding to? It was more of the same kind of Schrodinger's Build stuff you came in with. If the warlock is spending their invocations on EB enhancers, of course its the better choice to EB. Duh. But If I build a bladelock, without any EB enhancing invocations, how can it still always be better to use EB? That's just plain silly.

Because EB is just that good. Frankly, it's probably too good; I often comment that EB and Hex are class features disguised as spells. The issue primarily being one of the defensive advantages of being at a range; it makes it much easier to keep your concentration going on hex if you aren't in the thick of things. The end result is that a warlock at range can usually keep his hex up, while a warlock in melee -- minus several ASIs spent on building up concentration -- generally can't.

The issue isn't the actual, underlying damage outputs. The issue is that a warlock in melee doesn't have the tools to keep his concentration going without spending a few ASIs on things like Warcaster / Resilient(Con), while a warlock at a distance does. Acknowledging that you're not into Character Optimization, the point of the analysis was actually about putting mathematical numbers on my emotional impressions. Or to put it another way, I was trying to analyze what I 'felt' to be true the best I could. Frankly, the bladelock spends resources to be almost as good in melee as the blastlock is -- with fewer resources spent -- at a distance. That's... OK. I can accept being inferior to the fighter in melee, inferior to the blastlock at range, in return for flexibility. It wasn't what I expected the results to be.

And of course, you spend way more resources to be good in melee; it takes multiple ASIs and invocations to keep up, while a single invocation gets you all the power of EB's core damage output.

 

[Leo Giorni Nocchi]

No. It isn't.

And gives you other advantages. And why can't an archer wear a Full Plate?

What nature? Why can't they use a blade?

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see the same things you are seeing.

Wow, that's odd. I wonder what all contributed to this belief, and subsequent changes in behavior. Did the player, perhaps in hindsight, actually just prefer being a blastlock and not tell anyone they had made a choice counter to their preferences? Because I can't imagine such a drastic misalignment happening at our table.

1. Since his best Weapon Proficiencies are STR based (A.K.A non Finesse) and he needs at least 15 STR to wear a Full Plate without speed penalty I classify him as a STR based class.

2. Speed Penalty, I believe your archer don't have 15 STR

3. Since most of the Warlock's Features (A.K.A spells) are CHA based not using his prime attribute goes against his nature. Yes he can use a Blade, you're just dumping your prime attribute.

4. Tell me the advantages then

5. Positioning issues only; most of the time it was AWAY safer just to Eldritch Blast instead of getting in melee range.

 

[RonLugge]

And gives you other advantages. And why can't an archer wear a Full Plate?

It's unusual, but an archer can wear full plate.

It just means keeping his strength up high or suffering some nasty movement penalties, since it requires a 15 strength.

 

[Lanliss]

The number one thing I still don't understand is, Why is everyone comparing the Bladelock to the fighter? Full caster with some melee vs. Pure martial?

I already had a thread on this subject, but the comparison should be with Valor Bard and BladeSinger wizard, the other two Full casters w/ melee. With that comparison, the other two both get a free Extra Attack. Other than that, the only major gulf is between the Bladesinger and the other two, because Bladesinger can get obscene AC without even trying.

I say give Blade pact an extra attack at 5th, and take Bladesinger down a notch or two. I think possibly the biggest problem I have with it is the +Int to concentration saves, meaning it can keep Haste up all day long with a minimum +5. Any points in Con, or the Resilient (CON) feat, makes it much higher, with a potential max of +16 to Concentration saves. At advantage if they take Warcaster as well, though they would have needed some good starting stats to manage those scores, a moderate dex, and two feats. /tangent