What do you think about a rogue 3/warlock 17?

[Rfkannen]

I was thinking about this build. It would work rather well I imagine.

Personally I think the best would be fey, blade, and assasin

Something like, rogue 1, warlock 3, rogue 2, warlock the rest.

What do you think of this?

[Callin]

You dont get your first stat increase till lvl 7. Thats a good long way off. You wont get your second attack with Blade Pact till 8.

Its not a bad build but it delays stuff till the campaign is about halfway over.

[Madfellow]

Well, I suppose it depends on what you want to get out of it. Three levels of rogue I think is a bit awkward, since it seriously delays your access to an ability score increase/feat. Four levels of rogue prevents that, and two levels mitigates it.

Depending on the build, this could make a fairly good skill monkey/blaster mix. Blade Pact also seems like an awkward choice, unless you take fewer levels of rogue. The reason for that is the rogue levels delay your access to the Thirsting Blade invocation, which is a big part of why you take the Blade Pact. Chain or Tome Pacts don't suffer as much from the delay, so they might be better choices.

Just my thoughts. Hope this helps.

[Bellberith]

I was thinking about this build. It would work rather well I imagine.

Personally I think the best would be fey, blade, and assasin

Something like, rogue 1, warlock 3, rogue 2, warlock the rest.

What do you think of this?

I think it is a very powerful build. It is actually one i have theory crafted since 5.0 came out and planned to make it my next character.

Making it a fiend warlock and pact of the blade you can nova for over 300damage. Probably the best assassin build i have seen in the game.

Not only is it a good skill-monkey / assassin. but with foresight and mage armor + high dex and the correct feats / items.... it can become a powerful melee fighter also.

[Rfkannen]

What would do you if you wanted to be strong at low level?

[Bellberith]

What would do you if you wanted to be strong at low level?

Well, in my opinion this build does not really get powerful until later levels. So you might want to think of another build if you want to be a munchkin powerhouse.

[Easy_Lee]

What would do you if you wanted to be strong at low level?

I might suggest an alteration to the build: warlock 12 / (rogue 8 or rogue 4 / fighter 4). You miss out on a skill from starting rogue, but blade pact warlock is very powerful at low to mid levels by itself. High levels are where blade pact has fewer blade-pacty options, so you could multiclass into assassin (and potentially fighter) to keep your fighting edge without giving up on attribute increases.

[Bellberith]

I might suggest an alteration to the build: warlock 12 / (rogue 8 or rogue 4 / fighter 4). You miss out on a skill from starting rogue, but blade pact warlock is very powerful at low to mid levels by itself. High levels are where blade pact has fewer blade-pacty options, so you could multiclass into assassin (and potentially fighter) to keep your fighting edge without giving up on attribute increases.

Honestly just going warlock 11 first would be more than enough, then rogue 3, then finish with warlock 17.

More powerful at later levels and retains the 9th level spells.

[Easy_Lee]

Honestly just going warlock 11 first would be more than enough, then rogue 3, then finish with warlock 17.

More powerful at later levels and retains the 9th level spells.

Firstly, you want warlock 12 before going rogue 3 for your build because that's when blade-pact warlocks can get CHA to weapon damage. Second: you lose an attribute boost, among other bonuses, for going rogue 3 instead of 4 or 8. Blade-pact warlocks are particularly MAD, so giving up an attribute boost can really hurt the build. Let me explain:

Using standard array (which I wouldn't, but some have no choice) and an ideal race (half elf or lightfoot halfling), you start off with stats that look something like this: 16 dex, 16 cha, 13 con, 12 wis, 10 int, 8 str.

Normally, that odd constitution really sucks, as does having multiple main stats. Blade-pact warlocks are less reliant on CHA than most, so you would normally do something like the following: (4) +2DEX, (8) +2DEX, (12) Resilient CON, (16) +2CHA, (19) +2CHA.

But with one less attribute boost, you have to give up on one of those things. You'll probably opt to give up on 2 CHA, meaning every attack is doing one less damage at max level. But it also means your spells and abilities are easier to resist, your CHA skill checks aren't as high, etc. Maybe that's worth one 9th level slot per day to you, maybe it's not. But I'd rather focus on those things that make the blade-pact warlock stand out (gishing) than get some once-per-day situational spells.

In general, I think having max main stats and constitution prof at 20 is more beneficial than a once-a-day spell slot. The only level 14 pact feature that does damage is the fiend pact hurl through hell. But it does damage at the end of the warlock's next turn, so it doesn't benefit from assassin. I could definitely see a max-level warlock assassin doing 2-3 attacks and hurling the opponent through hell on the last one, then readying power word: kill at 9th level when the target returns. That's a really particular build, though.

It all comes down to preference, I suppose. If you don't use standard array, it becomes easier to justify a multiclass that loses attribute boosts. That would let you push your non-main stats lower for an extra point her and there so you would only need three attribute boosts and resilient constitution. It all depends on preference.

[GiantOctopodes]

Except, with those starting stats, I wouldn't take a single attribute increase over feats (though I would seek out a feat to give +1 con). Just saying, those are good enough all day long, and though someone with a permanent +2 in all things over you definitely has a distinct mathematical advantage, I'd personally rather take the feats. YMMV. I think the reason he was sticking with Rogue 3 is to get the assassin crits, while still getting 9th level spells. Mind you, those 9th level spells are at level 20, so unless you actually play at level 20 for a fair amount of time after campaigning long enough to get there (which would be absolutely stunning in its rarity, but hey, I can't judge for you what you are going to play) it's not actually a benefit, but even in terms of writing your character's epilogue if nothing else, for some people having hit the 'peak' of their power is an important thing.

[Bellberith]

Firstly, you want warlock 12 before going rogue 3 for your build because that's when blade-pact warlocks can get CHA to weapon damage. Second: you lose an attribute boost, among other bonuses, for going rogue 3 instead of 4 or 8. Blade-pact warlocks are particularly MAD, so giving up an attribute boost can really hurt the build. Let me explain:

Using standard array (which I wouldn't, but some have no choice) and an ideal race (half elf or lightfoot halfling), you start off with stats that look something like this: 16 dex, 16 cha, 13 con, 12 wis, 10 int, 8 str.

Normally, that odd constitution really sucks, as does having multiple main stats. Blade-pact warlocks are less reliant on CHA than most, so you would normally do something like the following: (4) +2DEX, (8) +2DEX, (12) Resilient CON, (16) +2CHA, (19) +2CHA.

But with one less attribute boost, you have to give up on one of those things. You'll probably opt to give up on 2 CHA, meaning every attack is doing one less damage at max level. But it also means your spells and abilities are easier to resist, your CHA skill checks aren't as high, etc. Maybe that's worth one 9th level slot per day to you, maybe it's not. But I'd rather focus on those things that make the blade-pact warlock stand out (gishing) than get some once-per-day situational spells.

In general, I think having max main stats and constitution prof at 20 is more beneficial than a once-a-day spell slot. The only level 14 pact feature that does damage is the fiend pact hurl through hell. But it does damage at the end of the warlock's next turn, so it doesn't benefit from assassin. I could definitely see a max-level warlock assassin doing 2-3 attacks and hurling the opponent through hell on the last one, then readying power word: kill at 9th level when the target returns. That's a really particular build, though.

It all comes down to preference, I suppose. If you don't use standard array, it becomes easier to justify a multiclass that loses attribute boosts. That would let you push your non-main stats lower for an extra point her and there so you would only need three attribute boosts and resilient constitution. It all depends on preference.

I would trade a feat for 9th level spells ANY DAY.

warlock 17/rogue 3 is far superior to warlock 16/rogue 4 or warlock 12/rogue 4/fighter 4......

9th level spells... especially power word kill and foresight are just amazing.

[JoeJ]

I would trade a feat for 9th level spells ANY DAY.

warlock 17/rogue 3 is far superior to warlock 16/rogue 4 or warlock 12/rogue 4/fighter 4......

9th level spells... especially power word kill and foresight are just amazing.

If 9th level spells are that important to you, than you really need to stick with straight warlock for 17 levels before dipping rogue. Otherwise, you increase the chance of never getting to cast those spells, and even if you do make it there, you won't have as long to enjoy them.

[Easy_Lee]

If 9th level spells are that important to you, than you really need to stick with straight warlock for 17 levels before dipping rogue. Otherwise, you increase the chance of never getting to cast those spells, and even if you do make it there, you won't have as long to enjoy them.

If 9th level spells are important, you really ought to play a wizard or sorcerer IMO. Or bard...really, warlocks are the least "casty" of pure casters. That's why I prefer to focus on the melee end of things and create a very gishy one. But as I said, it's preference. Pure bladelock is by no means a weak option and warlock 17 / assassin 3 has its merits.

[hecetv]

:miko:
If 9th level spells are important, you really ought to play a wizard or sorcerer IMO. Or bard...really, warlocks are the least "casty" of pure casters. That's why I prefer to focus on the melee end of things and create a very gishy one. But as I said, it's preference. Pure bladelock is by no means a weak option and warlock 17 / assassin 3 has its merits.

I think it's tempting because a lot of the inherent (and by all means mitigable with feats or whatever) squishy ness of a warlock can kind of be covered up with cunning action....

I don't know why I feel a need to rant on every bladelock topic so I won't this time but yeah. Pure bladelock ftw. Or thieves cant because who doesn't want to leave graffiti everywhere for fellow rogues around the world? Seriously that's a huge reason for me to want to multiclass rogue.