Do I NEED a feat?

[Beacon of Chaos]

I'm playing a Tiefling Warlock in a campaign and the party has just leveled up to level 4. I have the opportunity to take a feat, but I'm honestly not sure that it would be better than more stats. Here are my ability scores before leveling up:

STR 10
DEX 12
CON 15
INT 16
WIS 13
CHA 19

Yeah, I know, that INT should have gone into DEX. I'm new at this. Anyway, I don't see anything on the feat list that seems essential for me. Alert would be good, as would Spell Sniper or maybe War Caster, but I don't think I need them yet. My plan is to take +1 to CON and CHA, which seems like a really strong option for me. Is there anything I'm missing? In case it helps, here are the spells and options I currently have (including stuff I took at level 4):

Pact of the Chain
Invocations: Mask of Many Faces, Misty Visions
Cantrips: Eldritch Blast, Chill Touch, Thaumatergy, Prestidigitation
1st: Tasha's Hideous Laughter
2nd: Phantasmal Force, Invisibility, Ray of Enfeeblement, Mirror Image

[Morukai]

I'd buff the Con/Cha like you said. Also, if you just leveled to 4, you can swap out one of your existing invocations for the Agonizing Blast one, which will let you add your Cha mod to EB damage.

You pointed out the most attractive feat options- spell sniper in particular is a good one for Warlocks because it lets EB ignore anything but full cover and doubles the range, and since EB is such a big part of Warlock damage, that's a pretty big deal... but the Con/Cha bumps matter more at this point, IMO.

The only caveat might be if you're the party face, you could burn 2 feats: Actor, which gives you the cha bump and other abilities (would work nicely with Mask of Many Faces) and Reslient: Constitution, which would bump that Con up and give you proficiency in the saves.

That's something to consider, but it will take 2 feats and some time. However, with the right build, it's a pretty solid option.

You should have 3 x 1st level spells, at minimum, and 2 other spells which could be first or second level. I only see 1 of your first level spells and 4 second level, though... am I missing something?

[Yorrin]

Yeah, I'd do the Cha/Con bump for now. Maybe work on Dex for your later bumps. Casters in general have fewer feats that they get a lot out of, so barring something specific you want from feats you'd be fine never picking one up.

Though you should pick up the agonizing blast invocation post-haste. For real. It's what makes all the other Cha classes consider a Warlock2 dip.

[Gurka]

Looks to me like the most important thing you can nab is the invocation that adds you CHA mod to Eldrich blast. I don't recall the name off hand, or even if there's a level requirement, but I don't think there is.

That said... I'd get your CHA to 20 first, then worry about war caster or spell sniper. They're both fantastic for warlocks, but maxing that main stat is (IMO) more important, unless the DM insists on sticking melee attackers in your face. If he's content to let you hide behind the bricks in your group, then you really won't get a lot from war caster. Spell sniper makes for some neat combos, and ignoring half and three-quarters cover is great, but not as useful as an extra +1 to hit and damage (once you get the appropriate invocation) on every attack.

EDIT: Yorin got it. Agonizing Blast. It's FANTASTIC from a damage perspective.

[Beacon of Chaos]

I'd buff the Con/Cha like you said. Also, if you just leveled to 4, you can swap out one of your existing invocations for the Agonizing Blast one, which will let you add your Cha mod to EB damage.

Yeah, I'd do the Cha/Con bump for now. Maybe work on Dex for your later bumps. Casters in general have fewer feats that they get a lot out of, so barring something specific you want from feats you'd be fine never picking one up.

Though you should pick up the agonizing blast invocation post-haste. For real. It's what makes all the other Cha classes consider a Warlock2 dip.

Looks to me like the most important thing you can nab is the invocation that adds you CHA mod to Eldrich blast. I don't recall the name off hand, or even if there's a level requirement, but I don't think there is.

That said... I'd get your CHA to 20 first, then worry about war caster or spell sniper.
Heh, well I guess that settles it then. I was planning on taking Agonizing Blast next level, which is when Eldritch Blast gets the extra beam, but I suppose I can part with Disguise Self for now and pick it up again later. Especially since the party is now moving away from civilization to explore a lost city.


You should have 3 x 1st level spells, at minimum, and 2 other spells which could be first or second level. I only see 1 of your first level spells and 4 second level, though... am I missing something?
You can swap out a spell at each warlock level, and it doesn't say it has to be the same level, just a level you have slots for.

[Morukai]

You can swap out a spell at each warlock level, and it doesn't say it has to be the same level, just a level you have slots for.

Got me there, I completely missed that. Good call!

[Easy_Lee]

I would go with Actor now and Resilient (con) later. Con saves are just good to have. Actor opens up a large number of RP options and in general can be quite good (skip it if you never think you'll use it based on the DM / campaign). That delays your Con, but you end up with the same (primary) stats at 8 and two feats instead of one.

Or you could go pure stats all the way. It depends a lot on the character.

[Ferrin33]

I would go with Actor now and Resilient (con) later. Con saves are just good to have. Actor opens up a large number of RP options and in general can be quite good (skip it if you never think you'll use it based on the DM / campaign). That delays your Con, but you end up with the same (primary) stats at 8 and two feats instead of one.

Or you could go pure stats all the way. It depends a lot on the character.

Actually, I'd suggest +1 Cha/+1 Dex at 4, Moderate Armor Proficiency(+1 Dex) at 8, and Resilient(+1 Con) at 12, and put 16 and 19 in Con as well.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, I'd suggest +1 Cha/+1 Dex at 4, Moderate Armor Proficiency(+1 Dex) at 8, and Resilient(+1 Con) at 12, and put 16 and 19 in Con as well.

A more "tanky" option, this works fine too.

[Ferrin33]

A more "tanky" option, this works fine too.

Yeah, max Constitution, Charisma, full benefit from medium armor and you get to wear a shield. Also get the important con saves which I initially forgot, thanks for bringing that up.

[mephnick]

Stats might be superiour at certain points, but I find feats that let you do things a lot more interesting.

Depends what your goal is I guess.

[Yagyujubei]

I'm gonna take the other side of the argument and say; while you would benefit from going CHA/CON/DEX and could end up with some really great modifiers, there are feats you should absolutely take. I would go CHA/CON at level 4, but you really REALLY should at least get spell sniper if you're gonna play a elritch blaster. The ability to ignore cover in my opinion is way too good to pass up, since partial cover should be a factor in like 70% or more of battle situations you encounter.

robbing enemies of a +2/4 (or whatever it is AFB) AC bonus is MUCH better than a +1 to atk/dmg imho

[MaxWilson]

I'm gonna take the other side of the argument and say; while you would benefit from going CHA/CON/DEX and could end up with some really great modifiers, there are feats you should absolutely take. I would go CHA/CON at level 4, but you really REALLY should at least get spell sniper if you're gonna play a elritch blaster. The ability to ignore cover in my opinion is way too good to pass up, since partial cover should be a factor in like 70% or more of battle situations you encounter.

robbing enemies of a +2/4 (or whatever it is AFB) AC bonus is MUCH better than a +1 to atk/dmg imho

Partial cover is +2/+5. It really depends on your DM though. Some DMs never use partial cover at all, and some parties never take advantage of it. Also DMs rely way more on traps than on monsters, which could make feats like Dungeon Delver situationally useful.

[Beacon of Chaos]

I would go with Actor now and Resilient (con) later. Con saves are just good to have. Actor opens up a large number of RP options and in general can be quite good (skip it if you never think you'll use it based on the DM / campaign). That delays your Con, but you end up with the same (primary) stats at 8 and two feats instead of one.

Or you could go pure stats all the way. It depends a lot on the character.
It's an idea, though Actor isn't really that interesting to me. If I kept Mask of Many Faces, it would be more useful. Does Disguise Self include voice changing?


I'm gonna take the other side of the argument and say; while you would benefit from going CHA/CON/DEX and could end up with some really great modifiers, there are feats you should absolutely take. I would go CHA/CON at level 4, but you really REALLY should at least get spell sniper if you're gonna play a elritch blaster. The ability to ignore cover in my opinion is way too good to pass up, since partial cover should be a factor in like 70% or more of battle situations you encounter.

robbing enemies of a +2/4 (or whatever it is AFB) AC bonus is MUCH better than a +1 to atk/dmg imho
So far we haven't had any encounters with enemies that used cover. That said, we started at level 3 and have only had 4 sessions since then. I'm not saying that cover won't be a thing later on, just that it doesn't seem to be a big deal right now. Also, blasting was kind of an after thought with this character. She was supposed to be more of a support character.


Arg, now I have more options to consider. I'm glad I have another week to decide. ^^:

[Yagyujubei]

Partial cover is +2/+5. It really depends on your DM though. Some DMs never use partial cover at all, and some parties never take advantage of it. Also DMs rely way more on traps than on monsters, which could make feats like Dungeon Delver situationally useful.

oh, maybe it's just my experience then....but when i play it's kinda like:

you have a party member in melee with the enemy you're targeting? partial cover

is the enemy smaller than your party member or are there more than one allies around it? 3/4 cover

any situations with two people grappling? partial cover

granted, this becomes null if you and your party member are arranged at a 90 degree or higher angle, but when you add multiple party members and multiple enemies into the mix meeting that simple requirement becomes increasingly difficult, and doing so usually opens people up to OAs when trying to get into position. and these cover problems can show up even when there isn't an ally right next to the enemy, it can happen anytime theyre between you and the target

and thats just with in combat bodies, in my playing experience, in situations including hallways/ doorways/walls/etc. even if you have line of sight to an enemy, it's almost assured that they will have at least partial cover from your attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Yep, I run partial cover similarly to that too. Narrow corridor with two guys fighting? Everybody in back has to shoot past 3/4 cover to hit the combatants.

[Beacon of Chaos]

oh, maybe it's just my experience then....but when i play it's kinda like:

you have a party member in melee with the enemy you're targeting? partial cover

is the enemy smaller than your party member or are there more than one allies around it? 3/4 cover

any situations with two people grappling? partial cover
Hmm. My DM has been ruling that shooting into melee is a disadvantage roll. I'll have to perhaps ask him if Spell Sniper will negate that. If it does, then that feat definitely goes on my want list.

[Shining Wrath]

In 5e, you can move, blast, and move. That somewhat reduces the effectiveness of cover and therefore Spell Sniper.

I think I'd take the path suggested by Easy_Lee of Resilient and Actor, assuming that you are the party face or can otherwise find a use for being pretty. Having proficiency in Con saves is simply epic.

[Rezby]

RAW, shooting into melee is half cover, for +2 AC. On page 196 of the PHB, it explicitly says the obstacle might be ... a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend. Unless they're on the very edge of the outskirts and you've got clear line of sight to them, shooting into melee is half-cover.

Of course, 5th edition encourages DMs to modify everything as they see best, so ymmv. I'd personally replace misty visions with agonizing blast, and take the +1 cha and +1 con. that'll have tangible benefits immediately, modifying your concentration, hp, and to hit and damage. Being able to ignore cover is a nice feature, of course, so there's good arguments on both sides.

[MaxWilson]

RAW, shooting into melee is half cover, for +2 AC. On page 196 of the PHB, it explicitly says the obstacle might be ... a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend. Unless they're on the very edge of the outskirts and you've got clear line of sight to them, shooting into melee is half-cover.

Not sure what you mean by "outskirts" here, but I would only apply that rule if a friendly creature was between you and your target. If the friendly was off to the side, or behind the target, no cover applies--and in many cases it's pretty easy to maneuver so you're not blocking allied fire unless you're dealing with a shield wall of enemies. YMMV though.

[Rezby]

Shooting into melee usually paints a visual image for me of a tavern brawl with everybody all up in each other's grills, and people trying to shoot crossbolts into the fray having to be careful not to hit their own allies or really just anybody who wasn't the target. If there's a group of people all standing around/adjacent to each other doing melee combat, trying to shoot somebody who is towards the center of the group will guarantee there is somebody else between you and them - thus providing cover (unless you move to a favorable angle, of course, but that's not always possible). I had meant the whole "clump" of people together as being "the melee" and the "outskirts" being somebody who was on the edge of the fight, towards you so you'd have clear line of sight and effect to them. Hope this clarifies my previous statement.

[Beacon of Chaos]

The more I think about it, the more I think Actor/Resilient makes the most sense for the character. I have proficiency in persuasion and deception, I have disguise self, and it kinda feels right for a great old one warlock to have the ability to easily deceive people, what with the telepathy and all.

I suppose the only problem I'd have with this set-up is that I'm not the only CHA class in the group. We also have a bard and a paladin who are CHA heavy, and I think our rogue might be a bit of a talker too. I might talk it over with them at the next session.