Dipping lock is all the rage

[Dalebert]

EDIT: After I wrote it, I almost feel like the title should be about homogeneity of choices due to lopsided design because it goes beyond locks.

I need to start off by announcing that I'm a hypocrite because I've done it myself. The first two levels are particularly juicy--two invocations and two spell slots that regenerate every short rest. Even a pure caster wouldn't mind having two extra slots that he can blow through like candy practically every encounter, and there's a surprising dearth of ways to see through magical darkness in 5e. Devil's Sight seems to be pretty much it. So lots of melee folk seem to seek that way to truly make darkness work for them. It's also possibly the only way to have darkvision if you're human (for more than an hour or two at a time at the cost of a spell slot). And one character without darkvision ruins it for the whole party. Now you're walking around in dungeons announcing your presence to all the mobs with a glowing beacon of some type.

But the fluff of it really bugs me. Do you find folks are glossing over the whole pact thing? It kind of hit home for me when I went fiend pact for a gish and the DM said "Yeah, fiends pretty much always deal in souls so you've pledged your soul." which wasn't the pact I had in mind but it's his world so I pledged my soul for darkvision and some extra HP.

This kind of goes beyond just the lock. One issue I seem to keep seeing is lots of choices but some of them are so tempting that you feel stupid not to take them, maybe even if it doesn't fit your concept. When the choices are like that, everyone starts to look the same. Many lock invocations seem like that. Level to 18 in lock so I can get a 9th invocation? I'm hard-pressed to care about more than about 6 of them. And I've seen several people make good cases for why EVERYONE should take the Lucky feat. Mechanically, maybe everyone really should be lucky, but fluff-wise everyone shouldn't be lucky! It's rather silly.

See what I'm sayin'?

[Human Paragon 3]

I don't believe a 2-level Warlock dip as as optimal as you've laid out. Delaying your spell levels for your entire career (so a strict wizard is casting 3rd level spells while you're just gaining 2nd, etc) is a major drawback. It also limits how far you can empower your spells by using bigger slots, delays your feats/ability boosts, and your fun high-level features.

[Dalebert]

I don't believe a 2-level Warlock dip as as optimal as you've laid out. Delaying your spell levels for your entire career (so a strict wizard is casting 3rd level spells while you're just gaining 2nd, etc) is a major drawback. It also limits how far you can empower your spells by using bigger slots, delays your feats/ability boosts, and your fun high-level features.

I haven't actually seen it done with a pure caster so that part was admittedly somewhat speculative. It seems more popular with gishes. I tend to agree that it's a high price to pay, i.e. lots of 1st level slots for delaying access to higher level ones, but it's in addition to any two invocations. So if you needed to dip for those for something you can't get anywhere else, e.g. abjuration wizard and endless mage armors, the regenerating 1st level slots feel like icing.

[Human Paragon 3]

Well, by the same token, if you're a combat-focused character, you are delaying your extra attack feature, or sneak attack dice, or high level paladin spells, or whatever. It's certainly not a completely unattractive choice. It's a good dip. I just don't think it's a slam dunk that every character should do

Whether to make the warlock dip and his pact a central part of the character is kind of up to player/dm style. Personally, if I were DMing and had any warlock character I would definitely play up elements of the pact. I would also make it clear to the player that the pact would matter, and part of the game would be about his patron, so if he just wants the mechanical dip and not the fluff, it might not actually be the best way to go.

As a player, the fluff of the warlock is one of the coolest parts about it, so I would be chomping at the bits for meaty roleplaying scenes that deal with the pact.

[Dalebert]

It's a good dip. I just don't think it's a slam dunk that every character should do

I didn't say that... I don't think. You're making me want to go re-read my OP now.


As a player, the fluff of the warlock is one of the coolest parts about it, so I would be chomping at the bits for meaty roleplaying scenes that deal with the pact.

I agree. It's just the DM's world did not accommodate the pact I had in mind for my character so it was jarring, and then too late to deal with it so my character concept changed basically. But I digress from the topic. But that said, it's fun to play up the pact for a warlock main and in fact I expect some of this to be coming up soon for another character. It's just that it can seem weird for someone who barely dipped lock, likely for optimization/mechanical reasons.

[Frenth Alunril]

I tend to play the fluff up a bit and personally see a 2 level dip into warlock as dropping two levels, and let me explain why I'm a bad dm at the same time:

A pact is an agreement of service for exchange. The devil will give you power for your soul, in Howl's Moving Castle the pact involved his heart, Rumpelstiltskin takes your first born. But those are all opening pacts, when you level up, the pact is ratified, more service for more in exchange...

Add to this, breaking the pact if you refuse to honor it, I see a warlock much like a paladin in regards to their ability to fall, now this may not be canon, but I'll be sure to play up the pact with my groups warlock.

Fluff, it makes the game!

[Rilak]

Even a pure caster wouldn't mind having two extra slots that he can blow through like candy practically every encounter

Even at level 9, my party's Wizard sees little point in level 1 spell slots. The cantrips scale but level 1 slots do not. True, spells like Faerie Fire or Hex are still useful at higher levels, but they are not used every encounter as a high-level Sorc for example.

[Socko525]

I've struggled with the idea of this for a while. I'm currently playing an OotA Paladin, so a feypact warlock could work fluffwise, and as you've mentioned the 2 extra spell slots could equal two more level 2 smites. Also eldritch blast would add a reliable ranged attack that synergized with a paladin's spellcasting ability.

But as other's have said, it would delay higher level paladin spells. If I were to multiclass, I'd probably start after level 12, that way I have extra attack and my 3rd ability boost/feat. But at that point, I almost wonder if it's a better call to dip 2 levels bard instead. Extra skill proficiency, inspiration, jack of all trades, and I wouldn't lose out on any spell slots, in fact I'd gain 1 6th level spell slot to upscale lower level spells...and I love the idea of vicious mockery. And I feel an OotA paladin also works well with bard as well.

[Human Paragon 3]

One issue I seem to keep seeing is lots of choices but some of them are so tempting that you feel stupid not to take them, maybe even if it doesn't fit your concept.

I think that's the line that made me believe you were implying it was a mechanically optimal choice most of the time.

[Dalebert]

I think that's the line that made me believe you were implying it was a mechanically optimal choice most of the time.

Okay, but note that was right after the sentence when I said this goes beyond just locks. I gave Lucky as an example. I can't definitively argue that everyone should take Lucky (eventually?) for purely mechanical reasons but I understand that POV and have heard some good arguments.

And I definitely don't feel everyone should play a lock. After all, most of my characters didn't. I did, however, point out that they gave locks and only locks certain abilities that aren't available via other means and probably should be like seeing through magical darkness. And in some cases, it just synergizes so well with another ability, e.g. darkness, that it tempts you into something for purely mechanical reasons. The other example I gave was an abjurer being able to cast mage armor at will.

So maybe I didn't imply that and that's poor communicating on my part but I feel the need to clarify. I'm not suggesting anything drastic like nerfing early levels of lock or anything like that. I feel like it could better be addressed by making these abilities less exclusive to the lock. Like why is there no spell like Ebon Eyes anymore? What about blind-fighting? That was a feat that I classically gave to most drow martials. Rogues get blindsense, but not until 14th level, so it's not exactly something you can dip to flesh out a character with access to darkness via some means.

[Once a Fool]

But the fluff of it really bugs me. Do you find folks are glossing over the whole pact thing? It kind of hit home for me when I went fiend pact for a gish and the DM said "Yeah, fiends pretty much always deal in souls so you've pledged your soul." which wasn't the pact I had in mind but it's his world so I pledged my soul for darkvision and some extra HP.

That's just DM laziness, right there. Your DM missed out on a great opportunity to take whatever you had in mind and put a fiendish spin on it. In fact, that process could have had a feel very much like bargaining with a devil.

Out of curiosity, what did you have in mind?

[TheOOB]

In 5e multiclassing almost always makes you a less powerful character than going solo class. Two levels of warlock gets you a decent(but not good) at-will attack, and a few useful abilities, but it's abilities don't really syngerize with any class.

[Rummy]

In 5e multiclassing almost always makes you a less powerful character than going solo class. Two levels of warlock gets you a decent(but not good) at-will attack, and a few useful abilities, but it's abilities don't really syngerize with any class.

I'd say that darkness and Devils Sight and fiendish vigor and armor of Agathys and hex all synergize well with fighters or Paladins or pretty much any Melee character.

[Shadow]

Yeah, I was going to take it a step further and say that a few levels of warlock can synergize well with almost any class. It may not strictly be optimal, but with the different Pacts and Boons, and the varied spell list(s) and invocations, there is tons of synergy available to be taken advantage of. That's precisely why dipping is "all the rage."

[AmbientRaven]

But the fluff of it really bugs me. Do you find folks are glossing over the whole pact thing? It kind of hit home for me when I went fiend pact for a gish and the DM said "Yeah, fiends pretty much always deal in souls so you've pledged your soul." which wasn't the pact I had in mind but it's his world so I pledged my soul for darkvision and some extra HP.


I played a bard X/Warlock2 intentionally for fluff reasons.
Before I even read the 5e book i decided that the Bard sold his soul to gain his abilities.

After discussing with the GM we agreed only 2 would suit my character as he is trying to fight his warlock abilities. As the game progressed though the bard slowly became more and more evil (After fighting a behir at level 4 with only 3 people (the 4th ran away) and killing it, due mainly to the Warlock dip (actually the fluff the gm added that I can speak ancient avian, as i sold my soul to a aearee old one, and ruled the Behir would know this language)
From that he took more warlock levels as darkness filled his heart

In the campaign that I run, I wont let people dip without reason.
Example: The party ranger has become an archery expert and pretty cold killer (and is very tactical in how they move/attack ect) so is dipping into battle master. The Sun Cleric has been adopted into a Eilistraee temple (basically) so is taking bard levels to show his spending time in the temples


I agree that a warlock Dip is strong, depending upon when the dip is taken

[Easy_Lee]

Honestly, it's all rather clever. Warlocks are designed such that they get some of their best stuff early. You're encouraged to dip warlock, to get at that low hanging fruit. But late game, when everyone is 20, the other casters pull way ahead in terms of the things they can do. Warlocks get one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell per day, max. Other caster get more of those things, and more options for how to use them. But they have to deal with the low levels, levels that are generally harder for casters that aren't warlocks.

It's like the light side vs. the dark side. Dark side tempts you with promises of immediate power. Light side takes work, but you can ultimately grow into something more powerful than the dark side can hope to achieve. Since warlock is about selling your soul for power, basically, it all makes sense. You commit to the patron to get the immediate power that you need. But in the end, it's not as fulfilling as another caster.

[NeoSeraphi]

I came to this thread fulling expecting optimization tips for multiclassing warlock and barbarian. And now I leave, disappointed, and left to face the fact that not everyone on this site enjoys a good pun as much as I do.

Back on topic: I think a lot of the reason people like dipping warlock is because of the long period between warlock getting his 2nd and 3rd spell slot (You have to wait until level 11 to be able to cast 3 non-cantrips per short rest. It's a little worrying).

If you're not a bladelock, this can mean that you don't feel like you're contributing to combat as much. So a full caster MC like lock/sorcerer or lock/bard can be used to play a warlock who doesn't run out of spells, I think.

Edit: Personally, I will always play Warlock 20, though. Hurl Through Hell is the most flavorful amazing feature in the whole book.

[Dalebert]

Honestly, it's all rather clever. Warlocks are designed such that they get some of their best stuff early. You're encouraged to dip warlock, to get at that low hanging fruit. But late game, when everyone is 20, the other casters pull way ahead in terms of the things they can do. Warlocks get one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell per day, max.

I'm with you there. I'd barely started playing my lock when I was looking at the later levels and trying to decide what class to continue in instead.

[Myzz]

Warlock is perhaps the Best Fluff wise class to dip, for reasons previously mentioned.

As a DM, you should relish players wanting to dip warlock. They just sold their soul! Use it, make that 2 dip bite them in their backside.

As a player it looks great at low levels because they are trying to get your soul, be very very wary!

Heck as an option dip warlock early, regret the decision the entire way to 20. Go after your patron to get your soul back. Lose your warlock levels if you dont die, and finish leveling in your other class =)

[GiantOctopodes]

Yeah, the prevalence of Warlock or Fighter dips (ironically, Warlock for "martials", Fighter for "casters") and the cost / benefit ratio has been enough for me to determine that I will not allow multiclassing in any games I run. It makes me glad multiclassing is an optional rule. That being said, I think you're 100% correct, a Warlock 2 / Whatever X is likely more powerful in general than a Whatever X+2, at any given level, and certainly the combination favors the dip more and more the longer the campaign continues to run.

That being said, people have sold their soul for less than unbeatable darkvision, phenomenal damage at range, and some additional utility. If taking Pact of the Tome and Book of Ancient Secrets (better than Agonizing Blast if your Cha is low), the amount of benefit is just too much imho, and from an in character standpoint, I couldn't fault them for trading their soul for that whatsoever. So if your DM allows it, certainly I'd take it. In fact, the fluff just makes it all the *more* appealing from where I stand- you give the DM free plot hooks and the chance to make a more compelling story for your character, and the chance for beautiful conflict, of which you are automatically the star and center, should you disregard or disobey the instructions from your pact master. Unlike Paladins, too, they don't automatically lose their abilities if they walk away, so that makes it all the more intriguing of an option, and should the DM take that opportunity to throw a bunch of CR 18 lackeys at you and TPK the party, well, he's a jerk anyway, and he could always drop the sky on you if the wants you dead.

[Z3ro]

I"m curious just how, exactly, DMs are punishing warlock dippers. I ask this for two reasons: one, as a warlock dipper myself (TWF with a 2 level warlock dip, the only way I could find to make TWF work), it's a huge boost to what would otherwise be a lackluster concept.

But more importantly: there's no penalties for ignoring your patron. Oh sure, there's all kinds of fluff about what might happen, but no rules about what will happen. In fact, the closest we get to a solid rule tells the DM to work with the player to determine just what role the patron is going to take in the warlock's life. There's nothing akin to a paladin falling.

Heck, from a fluff perspective, I can totally see a fiend granting boons to a warlock, then, confident in the corrupting influence of said power, let the mortal continue on. Then, slowly, the power would corrupt and send the mortal into the waiting arms of said fiend after a long time, no separate task required.

[Person_Man]

My 2cp:

As a DM, I honestly don't care about class fluff. It's there to provide players with ideas, not act as a straitjacket. I don't care if you derive your powers from a pact with a demon, Batman training, or friendship with a magical pony, or whatever. Even if you're a Fighter 20 and want to say that you made a pact with a demon in order to get your awesomeness at fighting, so be it. Classes are there to provide you with a package of game mechanics. I trust you to decide on your own story and character ideas.

I'm generally in the "multiclassing is rarely a great idea camp" - especially for full casters. But there are some circumstances where I think it makes sense. In particular, many non-full casters have large gaps between useful class abilities at mid-high levels. So after level 5, 7, or 11ish, its tempting to go into another class instead of trudging through 4 levels of meh in order to get to another useful ability. Similarly, if you know for a fact that your campaign is going to be a short one, it makes sense to optimize for a specific character level rather then a long term build. For example, I could see giving up access to levels 8 and 9 of a full caster class in order to gain levels 1 and 2 of Warlock or Fighter or whatever.

[SharkForce]

Even at level 9, my party's Wizard sees little point in level 1 spell slots. The cantrips scale but level 1 slots do not. True, spells like Faerie Fire or Hex are still useful at higher levels, but they are not used every encounter as a high-level Sorc for example.

then you're looking at the wrong level 1 spells.

disguise self, feather fall, mage armour, protection from evil, shield, even longstrider can be handy if you've got the spare slots for it.

now, useful enough that i would lose out on 2 levels of wizard? i don't think i'd go that far. wizard levels are pretty awesome. but i'd totally be happy to have an extra couple of level 1 slots per short rest on a typical wizard.

(on the other hand, paired with 120 foot darkvision that works in magical darkness it sounds a *heck* of a lot more tempting, even for a wizard).

[Dalebert]

Similarly, if you know for a fact that your campaign is going to be a short one, it makes sense to optimize for a specific character level rather then a long term build. For example, I could see giving up access to levels 8 and 9 of a full caster class in order to gain levels 1 and 2 of Warlock or Fighter or whatever.

What if you don't know for a fact and it's just likely? I will be shocked if any of the three games I'm playing makes it to 20. I'll be fairly shocked if one of them makes it to 10 or 12.

I completely understand the sacrifice you're making putting off main class abilities for a level or two, particularly full casters and access to higher level spells. The arguments that I have trouble relating to are ones about missing out on class caps. First thought--you really think you're going to get there? Second thought--for how long?

Multiclassing often feels like the bird in hand. It feels like it pays off well early on and you pay the price later. DMs all see to burn out after a while. I'm reluctant to bank on that incredibly slim chance that I might ever get to experience something like a level cap.

Even if I was 100% sure we'd make it to 20, my only dilemma for my lock is whether to go to lvl 12 or 14 before leveling elsewhere. That all depends on how badly I want a thrall. If not for that, level 12 would definitely be it. High levels in lock just seem particularly lackluster.

[GiantOctopodes]

Even if I was 100% sure we'd make it to 20, my only dilemma for my lock is whether to go to lvl 12 or 14 before leveling elsewhere. That all depends on how badly I want a thrall. If not for that, level 12 would definitely be it. High levels in lock just seem particularly lackluster.

Well, I'd definitely recommend 14, both for the Patron capstone and for the ability to grab Plane Shift, but beyond that, if you don't feel that spells like Foresight and Demiplane offer enough for you, I'd personally talk with the DM and see about getting different 8th or 9th level spells, those are meant to be a big deal, and though I'd definitely sell my soul just for Demiplane, not everyone is as jazzed about that ability as I am, which is totally understandable. If Wish was on the 9th level spell list, would you feel the same way?

[Easy_Lee]

Well, I'd definitely recommend 14, both for the Patron capstone and for the ability to grab Plane Shift, but beyond that, if you don't feel that spells like Foresight and Demiplane offer enough for you, I'd personally talk with the DM and see about getting different 8th or 9th level spells, those are meant to be a big deal, and though I'd definitely sell my soul just for Demiplane, not everyone is as jazzed about that ability as I am, which is totally understandable. If Wish was on the 9th level spell list, would you feel the same way?

There are some particular builds that make use of warlock 12. Notably, blade pact warlocks can get CHA to pact-weapon damage at that level. Depending on whether your GM allows you to make unarmed strike your pact weapon, that can lead to some pretty great monk DPR.

[cmac]

I've actually used this to allow players to resurrect dead characters. One particularly difficult encounter half my players wiped, including the healer. I wanted the battle to be a challenge, but wasn't planning on that result, so I offered the cleric an infernal warlock pact. He and his fallen comrades got resurrected but he could only take lock levels from then on. He went for it, and it actually became one of the lead story arcs for that group. From the RP side, it was great because he went from this heroic holy roller to this doomed hero striving for redemption. Gave me a whole hell of a lot of options for quests as well. The resurrected characters felt driven to redeem their cleric, and he of course had to watch himself be corrupted as he leveled.

[odigity]

There are some particular builds that make use of warlock 12. Notably, blade pact warlocks can get CHA to pact-weapon damage at that level. Depending on whether your GM allows you to make unarmed strike your pact weapon, that can lead to some pretty great monk DPR.

FYI-He's a Tomelock 4 (with the all-rituals invocation), Bard 1. He's going to get the EB invocations, but is not a blade guy. So Lifedrinker is not in the picture.