D&D 5E So...warlocks?

[TheGorramBatman]

How so?
Having to roll an ~8+ (assuming you afford a 14 Con after paying for Cha and either Dex or Str) after every hit is nothingt to sneeze at (and that's only on the early levels, the DC will soon be much higher than 10). Going toe to toe means you're on average losing your hex sooner than hanging out 100 feet away and blasting from there

First: At low levels the DC hardly matters. Low level monsters are pretty lousy at hitting things in the first place. If a player has a better than average chance of being missed as well as a better than average chance of making the save, then the situation is a molehill.

Second: The DC will not likely be much higher than 10. It can be but with flattened math, 20 is a lot of damage. For instance an Adult Male Blue Dragon (CR 16) deals 3d10 + 7 with its bite. That is an average damage of only 23.5. This results in the horrifyingly high average concentration check of 12 at a time the character probably should have both Warcaster and Resilient anyway. So, no, I wouldn't be worried about the DCs getting that absurd.

Third: I'm not sure what sort of D&D you're playing, but I've never seen a character just sit in the back with one finger firmly rooted in their nostril while the other fingers cast spells and go completely unscathed from the experience. Ever. This round's good positioning is just next rounds bad positioning.

Concentration is a red herring. Hex damage wins the argument for EB without having to bring the unimaginative or kid's-gloves DMs into the equation.

Edit: Although it did just occur to me that a high level Eldritch Blast does force 4 concentration checks all on its own in addition to all of its other goodies. Unless we're going to see an abundance of +3 Flaming Brilliant Energy Longswords, Eldritch Blast is likely the best "attack sequence" in the game. By a lot.

 

[Mirtek]

First: At low levels the DC hardly matters.

Constandly having to roll against DC10 with your +2 or lower bonus is not trivial

Low level monsters are pretty lousy at hitting things in the first place.

Assuming a warlock with 16 Dex und mage armor that's a 50% hit rate from a goblin

If a player has a better than average chance of being missed as well as a better than average chance of making the save, then the situation is a molehill.

Having a 20% chance of losing your hex each attack (after miss and save chance) will make you lose it quicker than a blaster warlock. Especially once you go mano a mano with multiattacking monsters

at a time the character probably should have both Warcaster and Resilient anyway.

So for the huge cost of blowing two feats, which means 20/20 is impossible for you now even if you start with 16/16 and take no feat you actually wanting due to paying of this 2-feats-tax, the concentration checks become trivial? Sure, why would we ever worry about them

This round's good positioning is just next rounds bad positioning.

To bad that you can't move and blast. Wait, you can!

 

[TheGorramBatman]

Constandly having to roll against DC10 with your +2 or lower bonus is not trivial
Assuming a warlock with 16 Dex und mage armor that's a 50% hit rate from a goblin
Having a 20% chance of losing your hex each attack (after miss and save chance) will make you lose it quicker than a blaster warlock. Especially once you go mano a mano with multiattacking monsters
So for the huge cost of blowing two feats, which means 20/20 is impossible for you now even if you start with 16/16 and take no feat you actually wanting due to paying of this 2-feats-tax, the concentration checks become trivial? Sure, why would we ever worry about them
To bad that you can't move and blast. Wait, you can!

Those Goblins have bows. The guy in melee isn't any more vulnerable than the guy at range.

Also those goblins are only +4 to hit. 16 dex and mage armor is a 40% hit rate from a goblin. Though none of that makes any difference between a ranged or melee Warlock when the race has easy access to both range/melee and tanking isn't a thing.

Do you frequently play D&D where all of the enemies are melee only and anyone at range gets to skip around giggling like schoolchildren while they are completely out of reach?

Neither do I.

 

[TheGorramBatman]

Eldritch Blast opportunity attacks will be made with disadvantage (unless you also take Crossbow Expert), so they're not that great. Once you get to three bolts you should be ahead compared to a single pact-blade attack, but I wouldn't consider it a meaningful advantage.

Really, the inability of ranged classes to get out of melee compared to previous editions (no 5' step or shift in 5E) is one of the biggest strengths of the blade pact -- you're no longer screwed in that situation. If you're a ranged warlock, enemies will want to stand right next to you and are unlikely to provoke OAs in the first place.

In general, though, I agree that without a lot of effort (feats and/or multiclassing), Eldritch Blast will easily outpace a pact blade in damage.

This really steps on the core of the issue, though not overtly.

Warlocks essentially run on a fairly simple priority system. Here is a really basic outline for a basic Warlock:

1. Cast a strategically important spell

2. Cast Eldritch Blast if at range.

3. Cry if caught in melee; consider eating opportunity attack, disengaging, or sucking it up and casting Eldritch Blast anyway.

Move as appropriate of course.

Now here is a basic outline for a Pact of the Blade Warlock:

1. Cast a strategically important spell

2. Cast Eldritch Blast if at range.

3. Cry if caught in melee; consider eating opportunity attack, disengaging, or hitting it with your sword.

Move as appropriate of course.

Realistically, Pact of the Blade doesn't actually change the class' priorities that much. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[Runny]

Are invocations keyed off of character level or warlock level?

 

[Gradine]

By the way, does anyone know if 5E will have Pearls of Power? If so, my future warlock character will hunt for, steal, buy, trade, and barter all of them.

"Wait, wait. I'm worried what you just heard was, "Give me a lot of Pearls of Power." What I said was, "Give me all the Pearls of Power". Do you understand?"

In other news, does anyone else remember the time when different character options didn't have to be perfectly balanced in order for them to be perfectly valid and desirable choices? Am I making that up? Did that time actually exist?

 

[Mirtek]

Those Goblins have bows. The guy in melee isn't any more vulnerable than the guy at range.

No one said they would never be attacked, but if your back ranks are attacked as often as your front ranks, then your party has huge tactic issue. If they are attacked less often, then their hex will last longer on average.

Also those goblins are only +4 to hit. 16 dex and mage armor is a 40% hit rate from a goblin.[/quite] 45% actually.. Coupled with 14 Con for a +2 save that's a 16% chance of losing hex on every attack. If you increase Dex/Cha and take feats you want instead of the Con-Check-Feat-Tax your save won't get any better, while the number of attacks against is increasing even if the DC stays the same (against an monster attacking twice with 40 hit chance, your risk of losing Hex is already at 30%)

and tanking isn't a thing.

Then your party does have a problem as a team. Protect the squishies has been important in D&D since 1974. No front rank can be perfect, but if the difference between being at front or back is 0, you have a big issue you need to work on.

 

[TheGorramBatman]

Then your party does have a problem as a team. Protect the squishies has been important in D&D since 1974. No front rank can be perfect, but if the difference between being at front or back is 0, you have a big issue you need to work on.

But the Warlock isn't going to be the guy protecting anyone in either of those situations. Just because someone is wielding and intending on using a melee weapon doesn't mean they're going to be completely outnumbered in melee all the time.

1. Typically a party will have a (couple) Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian who slams themselves face first into the biggest clod. This guy either ends up taking a lot of attacks or forcing a lot of opportunity attacks (or 1 in 5th, and I'm not sure how this is to be reconciled in the long term. This is strategically ucky).

2. Then, lesser melee picks apart the group from the flanks and edges. Rogues, melee bards, melee locks, and some clerics.

3. Finally, some people shoot/cast from a distance.

Starting with light armor, simple weapons, no shield proficiency, and d8 HP a Warlock simply isn't a serious contender for spot 1.

The difference between group 2 and 3 is a number approaching zero.

It doesn't matter what kind of Warlock (and Vengeance Paladins. Poor Vengeance Paladins) you're trying to make. Your options are to either take Resilient and/or War Caster, or cry that your Hex went down more often than you'd like.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why do people think that Hex is so great? It's a first level spell that's very hard to maintain out of the combat as when someone dies I think you have to transfer the hex? Unless I've misread it I'd rather save my Concentration for Silent Image and the like and my combat spells for things more like Evard's black Tentacles.

 

[Juriel]

Why do people think that Hex is so great? It's a first level spell that's very hard to maintain out of the combat as when someone dies I think you have to transfer the hex?

Because it has no save, adds +d6 damage to every hit, and lasts at least the entire combat (Concentration willing). I'd say that's pretty damn good for a lv1 spell.

Bonus point for it giving disadvantage to certain stat checks, though it's a bit ambiguous exactly what those entail.

Which is not to say that you should alawys cast it over higher-level spells at higher levels. But if there's a lv1 spell that wouldn't be a waste in comparison, Hex is it.