D&D 5E Blade Pact Warlocks and Conventional Wisdom

[TallIan]

Honestly, the pact boon features should have been baked into the class separate from the invocations. So as a warlock rises in power, the pact boons increase (e.g. blade=extra attack; chain=more powerful minion abilities; tome=more spells and esoteric knowledge). But as it stands, the pact boon invocations are, for the most part, invocation taxes.

I've always thought this was deliberate. Some Invocations are taxes for some builds but it allows a excellent level of customisation (especially if you are not worried about optimizing).

If you want a melee fighter you'll need Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker; if you want to be a back line "archer" you'll need Agonising Blast, Repelling Blast and Eldrtich Spear; want to be the master of social interaction? Beguiling Influence, Bewitching Whispers and Mask of Many Faces. There are option to be a primary ritual caster, a scout, a bookworm... Far beyond the simple choice of Fiend Blade pact for melee, Fey Tome'lock for charmer, etc.

Not having them built in allows a great level of hybridisation, you can take all the social interaction buffs and blade pact, to be able to sneak a weapon anywhere, either as a back up in case things go south or an assassin style character.

This thread really has made me reconsider the blade pact, at the very least as an interesting build. You are behind a fighter in DPR, you should be, but a fighter doesn't have access to misty step to bypass the evil wizard's minions, or darkness and devil's sight, to dark bomb a big mob of beasties and have disadvantage on all hits against him while getting advantage on all his own hits.

The only thing I really think is lacking is an invocation for medium and maybe heavy armour, although I would be tempted to offer medium armour directly to Blade pact.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There is no invocation... but there is a feat that comes with +1 str or dex... so it is quite easy to have good defenses at level 4 latest. If you are a human or dwarf you can have medium armor at level 1.

Edit: you can pretty much go for following build as dwarf:
Str 15+2, dex 14, con 13+2, int 8, wis 10, cha 12. You can later increase str and con or take resilient con if you have a lot of concentration spells. You may increase charisma as a low priority if you rather take more subtle spells. Str can be increased with the heavy armor feat if you like. You can also take the weapon master feat or a different half feat to make your stats even. Or increase cha to 13 just in case.

As a human you have access to shields which may prove useful.

 

[TallIan]

There is no invocation... but there is a feat that comes with +1 str or dex... so it is quite easy to have good defenses at level 4 latest. If you are a human or dwarf you can have medium armor at level 1.

I know it can be done, but a lot of this thread has been about how a STR based blade 'lock isn't viable without the optional rules of feats and multiclassing. Even allowing for those optional rules, it's still quite a big commitment or very restrictive (human or mountain dwarf) to get decent armour.

My point was (not very clearly, I'll allow), that an invocation for medium and maybe heavy armour or Pact of the Blade gaining medium armour would have allowed a STR based blade 'lock without the need for optional rules.

Certainly going down the invocation route would be costing you something, do you take Thirsting Blade and Armour of Mediumness for more staying power, or do you take Thirsting blade and Agonising Blast for range/melee versatility?

 

[Aldarc]

I considered that too, but a non-blade Warlock needs Eldritch Blast, and for Eldritch Blast to really shine you have to take Agonizing Blast. Also if you're a Tome-lock and don't take Book of Ancient Secrets, you're missing a key reason to take the class.

Invocations are tools for supporting your combat style. It's appropriate that the Blade Invocations be where they are, IMO. My only complaint is that they just aren't as effective as the EB choices.

That is, in part, why I think that some of these invocations should have been baked into the class for the sake of "boon support." A Tome-lock would automatically get the Book of Ancient Secrets as part of their pact, just as the Blade-lock would get the extra attack, and the Chain-lock would get whatever it is that provides the improved utility and communication of the familiar. Of course a non-blade Warlock would probably pick up Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast. I am not arguing that these should be baked into the other pact boons, as AB applies to multiple warlock types. The invocations with which I have a greater problem are the pact-boon taxes.

I've always thought this was deliberate. Some Invocations are taxes for some builds but it allows a excellent level of customisation (especially if you are not worried about optimizing).

If you want a melee fighter you'll need Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker; if you want to be a back line "archer" you'll need Agonising Blast, Repelling Blast and Eldrtich Spear; want to be the master of social interaction? Beguiling Influence, Bewitching Whispers and Mask of Many Faces. There are option to be a primary ritual caster, a scout, a bookworm... Far beyond the simple choice of Fiend Blade pact for melee, Fey Tome'lock for charmer, etc.

Not having them built in allows a great level of hybridisation, you can take all the social interaction buffs and blade pact, to be able to sneak a weapon anywhere, either as a back up in case things go south or an assassin style character.

I would say that the appeal to hybridization is true only outside of the "invocation tax" choices. Even if one is not an optimizer, there are "clear choices" among the invocations that are almost a given if you plan on taking a particular pact boon. As Irda Ranger says, "if you're a Tome-lock and don't take Book of Ancient Secrets, you're missing a key reason to take the class," which again goes back to the illusion of choice and "invocation taxes." The invocation hybridization of which you speak should be apart from the invocation boon tax.

The new UA invocations - or what make it through the process - may serve as a good starting point for providing greater depth of choice, but a number of "choices" still effectively remain "taxes" for the given boon. One or two additional boon-specific invocations, IMHO, should have been baked into the core class at appropriate levels as a means of providing a greater sense of 1) pact boon identity/archetype/combat style and 2) variable and flexible choices for invocations.

 

[Zardnaar]

IDK if I was the 1st one to spot the fighter1/warlock XYZ dip but it seems I was one of the 1st to see it in a real game when I ran the numbers with the wife and worked out the build around 2 years ago.

Back then we played a lot of 5E, 5 sessions in a week once with 2 DMs alternating. 2014 we had seen a great weapon master fighter in action along with CE+SS fighter and a Polearm master fighter and a sharpshooter hunter ranger. 2015 we had the Ftr1/Bladelock XYZ and Sorlock rolled up and being used.

THe fighter dip blows the single class bladelock out of the water except at level (maybe) and level 5. Even then I still think I like the ftr XYZ. Sure you can blow two feats on armor or take a fighter dip and take two more feats with a 1 level delay which is not that bad.

 

[TallIan]

Snip

I would say that the appeal to hybridization is true only outside of the "invocation tax" choices. Even if one is not an optimizer, there are "clear choices" among the invocations that are almost a given if you plan on taking a particular pact boon. As Irda Ranger says, "if you're a Tome-lock and don't take Book of Ancient Secrets, you're missing a key reason to take the class," which again goes back to the illusion of choice and "invocation taxes." The invocation hybridization of which you speak should be apart from the invocation boon tax.

The new UA invocations - or what make it through the process - may serve as a good starting point for providing greater depth of choice, but a number of "choices" still effectively remain "taxes" for the given boon. One or two additional boon-specific invocations, IMHO, should have been baked into the core class at appropriate levels as a means of providing a greater sense of 1) pact boon identity/archetype/combat style and 2) variable and flexible choices for invocations.

I would disagree, I have run a tome'lock with Devil's Sight and Book of Ancient Secrets. No Agonising blast until level 5, when your third invocation comes, because I wanted the versatility of BoAS and the ability to see in the dark outweighed my desire to do more damage. I have a player in the group I DM for that has dropped BoAS for his tome'lock in favour of something else (I can't remember what exactly), because he really wants Agonising Blast, Repelling Blast, and the other one.

Baking BoAS into the Tome Pact would remove that decision, either making the warlock more powerful, because his invocation choices are now freed up or restrict the customisability of the class because the invocation count is 1 fewer at each level to account for the baked in option.

I appreciate that is not a large sample group, but I don't see it as an illusion of choice just because some of the choices are more obvious.

 

[Zardnaar]

And now he'd need Wisdom too? Because I don't think you're going to get Shillelagh to key off Charisma...unless you add 6 levels of bard.

We found a 3pp race that can do it, have not played it yet. Kobolds Publishing Dragonkin.

 

[Aldarc]

I would disagree, I have run a tome'lock with Devil's Sight and Book of Ancient Secrets. No Agonising blast until level 5, when your third invocation comes, because I wanted the versatility of BoAS and the ability to see in the dark outweighed my desire to do more damage. I have a player in the group I DM for that has dropped BoAS for his tome'lock in favour of something else (I can't remember what exactly), because he really wants Agonising Blast, Repelling Blast, and the other one.

Baking BoAS into the Tome Pact would remove that decision, either making the warlock more powerful, because his invocation choices are now freed up or restrict the customisability of the class because the invocation count is 1 fewer at each level to account for the baked in option.

I hear what you are saying, but I still disagree as I am still of the mind that the pact boon invocations would have been more appropriate as features baked into the chassis of the warlock so that the nature of your boon expands with your warlock's power. IMHO, it sells the flavor and playstyle better. And I don't see the problem with a "more powerful" warlock given how it ranks fairly low among the casters in terms of power.

I appreciate that is not a large sample group, but I don't see it as an illusion of choice just because some of the choices are more obvious.

I guess that's just because you failed your illusion save then.

 

[Gadget]

I've enjoyed following the discussion. To shift the topic a little, what is everyone's opinion of the invocations that allow you a spell not on spell list once a day at the cost of a a Warlock spell slot? Prevailing thought a while ago was that they were not worth it for most. I have not seen a lot of Warlocks in play and have not seen them, or taken them myself. The exception may be Sculptor of Flesh, which allows for a once a day Polymorph, but others like Bane and Bestow Curse don't seem to be worth the effort, or at the very least should have been on the Warlock spell list to begin with. I remember others suggesting that they would waive the Warlock spell slot cost for these invocations, granting the player a free once a day additional slot. I'm not sure how I would handle it, but this 'solution' seems tempting.

 

[mellored]

I just add those spells to the warlock spell list. Except polymorph, which can be vast 1/long rest (no slot needed).

But back to the blade for a moment. If you give them medium armor, and both weapon invocations for free, that just brings them up to par.