Sell me on the Warlock

[Flamestrike]

Core: Hex + Grappler Feat

Race: Human (Take Grappler at level 1) or Dragon Born (Dex based save version)

Patron: Pick to best match your character background... maybe a slight nod to the Fiend for Dark One's Own luck at 6th level

Pact Boon: Likely Pact of the Blade (Going to max Strength first) and this gives you something to do when not grappling

Combat:
1) Hex your victim
2) Grapple them
3) Pin them
4) Let your party members attack them with advantage while they have disadvantage

Net victory for the monsters I'd say.

An individual PCs DPR/ options is much higher than a monsters.

 

[SouthpawSoldier]

OP wants a 9th level Warlock that doesn't rely on EB?

Here's a 9th level Warlock that doesn't rely on EB.

I honestly love the warlock for more than just crunch; it's a class designed to give the DM hooks.

A Pal2/lockX? Started out wanting to be a hero; instead of taking the Oath at third level, chose the easy way out, and now is hunted by former brother Paladins, while finding his morals eroding from making that first step down the left-hand path (never liked that phrase as a sinister person myself, but it fits here).

Tiefling Fiendlock? Patron is literally an ancestor, trying to exert influence in the world. Character either aids, to strengthen the family, or opposes, seeking acceptance.

Another fun Warlock concept I had that gained fantastic suggestions.

A non-religious person making a pact with a common deity; accepts powers and agrees to goals, but doesn't buy into the whole "worship" gig. Works well with the homebrew archangel and archon Patrons I've seen on reddit.

A wizard who doesn't quite have the smarts for the academy, but who had a knack for summoning magic, accidently binding himself to a _____ while fooling around. Think Ged of Earthsea.

I love the Ranger for concept (warrior in the wilds) but I REALLY love what the Warlock offers for character personality and story.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

Net victory for the monsters I'd say.

An individual PCs DPR/ options is much higher than a monsters.

It depends on the resources available and the party composition.

5th Level Warlock using Eldritch Blast (most common action of a warlock): .6 (hit rate) * (11 (average dice roll) + 8 (stat mod)) = 10.2

Average hit rate with advantage is 84% when average hit rate without advantage is 60%.

Do the party members (also likely 5th level) that require to hit have combined damage * .24 > 10.2, if so Grapple is a good idea and this is before factoring not being hit as often by the creature or extra damage from the increased crit chance of rolling two dice. This is going to depend on party size, but at a 6 or 7 person LA table the answer is almost always going to be yes.

Granted this is only used against single solo targets, and not against mobs of monsters. Against mobs of monsters a blade lock likely is going to attack and use cantrips or maybe cast a spell.

 

[EvanNave55]

5th Level Warlock using Eldritch Blast (most common action of a warlock): .6 (hit rate) * (11 (average dice roll) + 8 (stat mod)) = 10.2

Just thought I'd point out that .6*(11+8) =11.4 not 10.2

Come now. Those aren't apples-to apples. Try to stay between the goalposts. Those first two are not choices made within a class option, such as a caster choosing to know a particular spell. Because that's the argument. Your third attempt would be more apropos if you asked, "Must all 5th-level wizards know fireball"? To which I would say, "Heck no. Of course not."

While it may not be fully equivalent to a class option, it is more than some random cantrip as the warlock was built and balanced around Eldritch Blast in the same way as ranger's were balanced based on hunter's mark.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

While it may not be fully equivalent to a class option, it is more than some random cantrip as the warlock was built and balanced around Eldritch Blast in the same way as ranger's were balanced based on hunter's mark.

Are you sure all rangers need to take hunter's mark to be "balanced" (whatever you intended that word to even mean)?

 

[FrogReaver]

Are you sure all rangers need to take hunter's mark to be "balanced" (whatever you intended that word to even mean)?

You are asking the wrong question. Can there exist a ranger who is not balanced by any other option than taking hunters mark? If so hunters mark is a necessary spell for balance. That some rangers in some campaigns can be balanced without it doesn't mean that it isn't needed as an option for general class balance.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You are asking the wrong question.

To be frank, that's not for you to say.

Can there exist a ranger who is not balanced by any other option than taking hunters mark?

I reject that entire premise. Under what criteria would there be a lack of balance if the ranger did not take that one of numerous spells they have available to choose from?

If so hunters mark is a necessary spell for balance.

Please defend your opinion that you cannot have a "balanced" ranger at 1st level. [Hint: Because rangers don't have access to hunter's mark until 2nd level at the earliest.]

That some rangers in some campaigns can be balanced without it doesn't mean that it isn't needed as an option for general class balance.

You will need to define your use of "balance" then. Because I believe you are using it very differently than I.

Because the way I'm reading your point, you could just as easily be saying a party cannot be "balanced" unless it is a cleric because the adventure is found to have undead in it.

 

[EvanNave55]

Are you sure all rangers need to take hunter's mark to be "balanced" (whatever you intended that word to even mean)?

By balanced I'm talking about the designer's creating the classes and deciding what all abilities they should have and how powerful in order to balance that class with other classes.

And it can​ be possible to create a ranger without HM, however it will be more difficult and as the designers did balance the class around it's use. It's similar to what someone else said earlier in the thread of creating a fighter without armor, it can be done but it's more difficult as that's not in the general fighter parameters.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

By balanced I'm talking about the designer's creating the classes and deciding what all abilities they should have and how powerful in order to balance that class with other classes.

I would counter with the question, "If the devs intended all rangers to take hunter's mark, in order to be balanced, why is it only one of many spell's known choices and not just a class feature?"

And it can​ be possible to create a ranger without HM, however it will be more difficult and as the designers did balance the class around it's use. It's similar to what someone else said earlier in the thread of creating a fighter without armor, it can be done but it's more difficult as that's not in the general fighter parameters.

If that's true, I've got another one for you: Is a ranger only considered 'balanced' when he has hunter's mark active?

 

[Caliban]

Building an optimized Warlock with Eldritch Blast is easy and boring. I want to see what can be created without the crutch of cookie-cutter Eldritch Blast.
And, no multi-classing. I want to see how well this class handles diverse concepts on its own.
I want to compare this class' flexibility (that is, ability to handle diverse concepts) and effectiveness (compared to other classes) to the class I feel is most similar to it - the Ranger.

Nah. If you can't see how cool the warlock is yourself, I don't feel the need to teach you. Plus, your restrictions are dumb.