Pact of the Blade

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys, so I really like the flavor of warlock, and I am especially partial to pact of the blade. But I look at PotB and I think "it's alright I suppose" and then I look at pact of the Tome, and think "pact of the blade is supposed to compete with THIS!?" after all, the support our sword summoning buddy gets us pretty limited (an extra attack, that I have to spend on an invocation? Goodie!" when you compare it to the raw versatility and awesomeness of tome. So my question is: How do I keep Blade on even footing with Tome? And on that note, what's my excuse for wading into melee when I have a perfectly good eldritch blast?
Thanks, and as always, go nuts.

[CaptAl]

Pact of the Blade with extra attack, hex, and Cha to damage is pretty close to EB spam for damage. Add in damage reflect from AoA and hellish rebuke or an AoO and your raw damage output is solid. You still get the same spells/rest, but you miss out on extra cantrips and the best ritual casting in the game.

From a DPR perspective the two are fairly equal, as long as you can get your mits on a magic weapon to use as your pact blade. It's just a matter of deciding if it fits your playstyle to wade into melee.

[Godwyn]

I am playing one now. And it is a lot of fun. I am envious of the rituals the other warlock gets sometimes. Overall it is a lot of fun though. I did go Fighter 1 at first level and left dex at 10, since it was the concept I wanted. I don't out damage the barbarian or paladin, but I never feel like I am not contributing, and also have a lot of available utility.

Also, switching to ranged attacks while you get into melee range is extremely easy. No need to switch weapons, attack bonus and damage will both still be high.

[MeeposFire]

Both warlocks are effectively equal at range. Blade can have an advantage in melee because they can make more attacks (2-3 if you take an option with a bonus action attack) and play more nicely with some buffs and special abilities such as haste. Tome is more likely to use weapon based cantrips like booming blade which are ok but do not benefit as much as blade does due to things like hex.

Blades slightly better combat versatility is offset by tomes out of combat utility. Those extra cantrips and rituals are cool though sometimes over valued. Many times you already have classes that can cast most of these rituals already (say if you have a wizard and a cleric with you which is not that uncommon) and thus this ability is neat but not a game changer (that being said I personally value individual versatility highly so tome is generally my favorite).

[RulesJD]

Both warlocks are effectively equal at range. Blade can have an advantage in melee because they can make more attacks (2-3 if you take an option with a bonus action attack) and play more nicely with some buffs and special abilities such as haste. Tome is more likely to use weapon based cantrips like booming blade which are ok but do not benefit as much as blade does due to things like hex.

Blades slightly better combat versatility is offset by tomes out of combat utility. Those extra cantrips and rituals are cool though sometimes over valued. Many times you already have classes that can cast most of these rituals already (say if you have a wizard and a cleric with you which is not that uncommon) and thus this ability is neat but not a game changer (that being said I personally value individual versatility highly so tome is generally my favorite).

Tomelock gets Guidance (effectively the Alert feat in many situations) and Shillelagh (more or less single stat depednent now if you want). Those two alone make it worthwhile.

Then you add in that they get Find Familiar and can generate advantage for their Booming Blade/GFB, and they quickly start doing more damage in melee than a Bladelock while also maintaining versatility.

[Gastronomie]

I think the main thing about Bladelock was using Darkness (on your own weapon) + Devil's Sight to give yourself a nerfed version of Foresight (still pretty darn good) from very low levels. You need to start Level 1 at Fighter to get the Constitution save proficiency and heavy armor though, if you want to build it good. Some people eventually put Figher to Level 3 and multiclass into Champion.
This is because, put together with the advantage Devil's Sight nets you, you can hit Critical in the nuts like nuts and use the feat Great Weapon Master to pull off extra attacks.

Oh, and apart from that, having a nasty sword engulfed in darkness appear in your empty hand looks veeeeeery awesome.

If the DM likes giving out presents, he could possibly bestow your pact weapon some extra abilities in return for completing a quest given to you by your Patron, but that's only if the DM is like that, so I dunno.

[Saggo]

an extra attack, that I have to spend on an invocation? Goodie!"

All Pacts have invocation taxes, including Tome. You can't Ritual cast without it.

[Spectre9000]

You want Pact of the Blade to exceed damage of Eldritch Blast? Ok, take a dip of Fighter to get Great Weapon Master and saves, then go Warlock. Take the Polearm Master Feat at level 4, and at level 5, you get an extra attack. Make your Pact Weapon a Halberd/Pike/Glaive and you now have 2d10+1D4 +Str*3 that you can reroll 1 and 2's on damage die. This is compared to the Eldritch Blast damage of 2D10 + Cha*2, and is already higher. This then starts to really outshine Eldritch Blast at level 12 when you get Lifedrinker. At that point you're doing 2D10 + 1D4 + Str*3 + Cha*3 rerolling 1's and 2's on damage dice against the Eldritch Blast's damage of 3D10 + 3*Cha. Level 12 is pretty much were Pact of the Blade ends for Warlock unfortunately, so you'll want to multiclass. Lore Bard 6 gets you Elemental Weapon, which is a huge damage boost to your weapon, giving you +2 to attack rolls and +2d4 damage per hit (6d4 total for all three hits) when cast as a level 5 spell. Additionally, you'll have Armor of Agathys which is significant damage as a level 5 spell (25 per hit on you), which won't be quite as effective in non-melee range, which you'll want to cast Eldritch Blast from due to disadvantage in melee on ranged attacks.

[miburo]

Bladelock definitely took a hit in popularity with the new SCAG cantrips. Tomelock with Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade is pretty awesome.

That said, a Ftr 1/Bladelock X is not a bad choice, Polearm Master as mentioned above. Heavy Armor, pretty good damage, and a nice DM might give you a magic weapon to compensate.


Level 12 is pretty much were Pact of the Blade ends for Warlock unfortunately, so you'll want to multiclass.

Is that really true, though? Elemental Weapon doesn't stack with Hex (so net gain of +2 to attack and +6d4-3d6 damage), and you can still cast Armor of Agathys as a Warlock. Also you lose out on some pretty sweet high level Warlock abilities. Ex. Hurl Through Hell is a great fiend ability, 1/day 7th/8th/9th level spells, and the 9th level Foresight is almost mandatory for a high-level Bladelock--advantage on attacks, saving throws, and disadvantage to enemy attacks all day? Yes please!

[Spectre9000]

Is that really true, though? Elemental Weapon doesn't stack with Hex (so net gain of +2 to attack and +6d4-3d6 damage), and you can still cast Armor of Agathys as a Warlock. Also you lose out on some pretty sweet high level Warlock abilities. Ex. Hurl Through Hell is a great fiend ability, 1/day 7th/8th/9th level spells, and the 9th level Foresight is almost mandatory for a high-level Bladelock--advantage on attacks, saving throws, and disadvantage to enemy attacks all day? Yes please!

Create Thrall I think is better than simulacrum as you gain a creature that gains experience and replenishes spells and can be your personal buffer if you manage to Enthrall a wizard/cleric/paladin/etc.

Foresight, helps you on rolls, but doesn't increase your damage, which is kind of what you're looking for in a Bladelock. Paladins at least continue getting more damaging Smites to enhance their melee attacks and OoV gets Soul of Vengeance after their level 11 soft cap.

[Talamare]

Create Thrall I think is better than simulacrum as you gain a creature that gains experience and replenishes spells and can be your personal buffer if you manage to Enthrall a wizard/cleric/paladin/etc.

Foresight, helps you on rolls, but doesn't increase your damage, which is kind of what you're looking for in a Bladelock. Paladins at least continue getting more damaging Smites to enhance their melee attacks and OoV gets Soul of Vengeance after their level 11 soft cap.

Just get Great Weapon Master, which makes having advantage more important

At max, Spell-locks deal only 4d6+4d10+Cha*4 with their Eldritch Blast
Assuming 20 Cha, puts them at 28~84 (56)

A pure Bladelock using a Glaive with Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master, attacks 3x for crazy damage. Assuming 16str/16cha
3d6+2d10+1d4+30+Str*3+Cha*3 = 54~90 (72)

[MaxWilson]

Create Thrall I think is better than simulacrum as you gain a creature that gains experience and replenishes spells and can be your personal buffer if you manage to Enthrall a wizard/cleric/paladin/etc.

Foresight, helps you on rolls, but doesn't increase your damage, which is kind of what you're looking for in a Bladelock. Paladins at least continue getting more damaging Smites to enhance their melee attacks and OoV gets Soul of Vengeance after their level 11 soft cap.

Create Thrall has two problems relative to Simulacrum:

(1) Simulacrum creates its own supply, but Create Thrall requires you to locate a supply of spare wizard/cleric/paladin/etc. that you can capture and no one will bother to free.
(2) Create Thrall, by RAW, does not do anything useful. It charms the target (cannot attack you; you get advantage on social checks) and allows telepathy. That's it. It does not dominate, it does not force them to obey you.

Many DMs, including myself, would override the RAW in favor of what is probably the RAI: you get a thrall who obeys you. (I think whoever wrote the rule text probably just wasn't fully familiar with the new definition of "charmed" in 5E.) But that still leaves issue #1.

The way you make a Simulacrum regain spell slots/gain experience is to just spend another 1500 gold and create a new one occasionally. It's somewhat expensive but given how much gold 5E gives you (by DMG tables) and how loudly certain people complain about not being able to spend gold on "anything" without magic item shops, I think that using Simulacrum as a way to turn gold into power is overall a good thing.

[Talamare]

Don't start with the Simulacrum stuff

[Spectre9000]

this post is irrelevant now

[Zalabim]

From level 1 to 10, the Bladelock uses Str and just does more damage than EB, or uses Dexterity and doesn't deal as much damage but has better AC. In exchange, they fight from melee instead of range. That's the simple version. The more complicated version is pretty well covered already. That stops working around levels 11-20, where Lifedrinker doesn't play nice with a Str-or-Dex-primary gish style (unlike Improved Divine Smite, for example), and the pact gets nothing further after that.

Personally, I'd make the pact weapon better than 1/8 of a feat (It's 1/4 of Weapon Master, which is already a 1/2 feat). Preferably something with a lot of flavor, primarily, since it works okay until level 10. I'd make Lifedrinker a die (d8 or d10) instead of stat based damage, and look for another benefit to either go with Lifedrinker (like gaining HP equal to the necrotic damage), or to provide at a higher level (like a better way to use those 4 spell slots per rest than adding fire shield to your armor of agathys.)

Though, in a fashion, you get more out of Foresight if you've been playing tank with the GWM feat than you do from spamming EB and rarely getting attacked.

[Spectre9000]

Jesus...



From level 1 to 10, the Bladelock uses Str and just does more damage than EB, or uses Dexterity and doesn't deal as much damage but has better AC.

Dex vs Str is irrelevant for AC. Dex and Str builds will both have 18 AC. Mage Armor + 5 Dex Mod is 18 AC, and Plate Armor is 18 AC. No difference. Additionally, Bladelock damage is greater than Eldritch Blast at all levels, unless you're using a sub-par weapon.


In exchange, they fight from melee instead of range. That's the simple version. The more complicated version is pretty well covered already. That stops working around levels 11-20, where Lifedrinker doesn't play nice with a Str-or-Dex-primary gish style (unlike Improved Divine Smite, for example), and the pact gets nothing further after that.

How does Lifedrinker not play nice with Str/Dex builds? All it does is add your Cha mod to weapon damage, the exact same as Improved Divine Smite, and you'll actually see a .5 damage bonus over IDS with a +5 Cha Mod. You get 5 ASI (+a Feat if variant human), which are more than enough to get +5 in Str/Dex and +5 in Cha, which you should start with 16 min in each at level 1. Also, Lifedrinker is a level 12 Invocation, not 10 or 11.


Personally, I'd make the pact weapon better than 1/8 of a feat (It's 1/4 of Weapon Master, which is already a 1/2 feat).

Weapon Master is a Feat that adds 1 to your Dex or Str and gives you proficiency in 4 weapons. Pact of the Blade gives you proficiency in all weapons essentially, but doesn't give you an ability score increase. The comparison between these two is a stretch at best. I would say half of Weapon Master is the ASI and the other half is the weapon proficiency, which only gives 4 weapons compared to all weapons Pact of the Blade gets. Granted you probably won't use even 4 weapons, but still, that ASI is significant.


Preferably something with a lot of flavor, primarily, since it works okay until level 10. I'd make Lifedrinker a die (d8 or d10) instead of stat based damage, and look for another benefit to either go with Lifedrinker (like gaining HP equal to the necrotic damage), or to provide at a higher level (like a better way to use those 4 spell slots per rest than adding fire shield to your armor of agathys.)

+5 Cha Mod exceeds the damage of a D8 on average, so I'd like to keep it the way it is. You should have a +5 Cha mod as Warlocks run off it. Fire Shield is pretty powerful as is a level 5 Armor of Agathys. At level 12 you also only have 3 Spell slots period, so I think that's plenty of spells to take up those 3 slots. At later levels, unless you're only doing 1 encounter per short rest, you're gonna need 4 slots to reapply your AoA and Fire Shield.


Though, in a fashion, you get more out of Foresight if you've been playing tank with the GWM feat than you do from spamming EB and rarely getting attacked.

In a system already geared for your to hit, I don't think advantage to hit is as big a deal, especially since at that point you'll have a +11-14 to hit already, you're not gonna be missing much. GWM along with PAM is a double feat tax and one you can only afford as a Human Variant. You're better off getting +5 to Str and Cha than getting GWM in my opinion. Also, I don't think I'd ever consider a Warlock a tank. They don't have an "oh ****" button nor the hit dice to support it. Sure you can deal 25+2D8 damage every time a creature attacks you, but you're still taking significant damage.

[Citan]

Jesus...

Dex vs Str is irrelevant for AC. Dex and Str builds will both have 18 AC. Mage Armor + 5 Dex Mod is 18 AC, and Plate Armor is 18 AC. No difference. Additionally, Bladelock damage is greater than Eldritch Blast at all levels, unless you're using a sub-par weapon.


How does Lifedrinker not play nice with Str/Dex builds? All it does is add your Cha mod to weapon damage, the exact same as Improved Divine Smite, and you'll actually see a .5 damage bonus over IDS with a +5 Cha Mod. You get 5 ASI (+a Feat if variant human), which are more than enough to get +5 in Str/Dex and +5 in Cha, which you should start with 16 min in each at level 1. Also, Lifedrinker is a level 12 Invocation, not 10 or 11.

Bolded part is plain wrong, sorry. :)
1. Warlock does NOT get heavy armor proficiency. Meaning tax feat or dipping feat.
2. Considering you start Fighter for proficiencies, you start with Chain Mail with is AC 16. DEX Warlock will probably have 16 dex, so also 16 AC. Do they start even then?
No: one is behind the other in terms of progression.
Not that one-level difference is really important (unless lvl 20 is reachable), but still, let's keep precise shall we? ;)

As for the other point, one could argue that these ASI you spend to pump cha AND str/dex on a bladelock could be instead be well-spent on Constitution or feats on a blasting lock since you depend only on CHA for offense. :)

[Spectre9000]

Bolded part is plain wrong, sorry. :)
1. Warlock does NOT get heavy armor proficiency. Meaning tax feat or dipping feat.
2. Considering you start Fighter for proficiencies, you start with Chain Mail with is AC 16. DEX Warlock will probably have 16 dex, so also 16 AC. Do they start even then?
No: one is behind the other in terms of progression.
Not that one-level difference is really important (unless lvl 20 is reachable), but still, let's keep precise shall we? ;)

As for the other point, one could argue that these ASI you spend to pump cha AND str/dex on a bladelock could be instead be well-spent on Constitution or feats on a blasting lock since you depend only on CHA for offense. :)

Most Bladelocks are gonna go 1 Dip of Fighter regardless for Fighting Styles at the very least, so yes, AC is the same regardless. No one goes pure Bladelock, especially when Paladin gives most of what Bladelock does, but doesn't lack for defense in addition to gaining a Fighting Style without dipping and has smites.

Why would you need high Con if you're not gonna be on the front line soaking damage? Incidentally, front line fighters also don't get 20 Con in favor of Str/Dex or spell casting mod unless they're explicitly going to tank (exception being non-Eldritch Knight Fighter due to literally only needing one stat). Furthermore, this is a discussion on Bladelocks not Eldritch Blast locks, and a Bladelock will still out damage an EB Lock even if EB Locks only need Charisma, as no feat increases the damage of spells except Elemental Adept, which doesn't apply to EB.

[Citan]

Most Bladelocks are gonna go 1 Dip of Fighter regardless for Fighting Styles at the very least, so yes, AC is the same regardless. No one goes pure Bladelock, especially when Paladin gives most of what Bladelock does, but doesn't lack for defense in addition to gaining a Fighting Style without dipping and has smites.

Why would you need high Con if you're not gonna be on the front line soaking damage? Incidentally, front line fighters also don't get 20 Con in favor of Str/Dex or spell casting mod unless they're explicitly going to tank (exception being non-Eldritch Knight Fighter due to literally only needing one stat). Furthermore, this is a discussion on Bladelocks not Eldritch Blast locks, and a Bladelock will still out damage an EB Lock even if EB Locks only need Charisma, as no feat increases the damage of spells except Elemental Adept, which doesn't apply to EB.
Interesting.
So you're basically saying yourself that a pure Bladelock is not worth it, or otherwise said, that it needs dipping into another class to make it really worthwhile.
Strange way to promote your case... XD

To answer your question, well, Warlock still has quite a few interesting spells that require Concentration, so even a Warlock staying at range could fancy a bump to help with survivability and spell permanence.

Or, you could also go close-quarters Blast warlock with Crossbow Expert and Warcaster to spam EB at opportunity (yes, by RAW it works, the wording is different from Quicken restriction), since, you know, you can more easily spend an ASI on feat because less stats to get.

The end of your post is especially funny since YOU yourself brought "blade VS blast" on the table: quoting, "Additionally, Bladelock damage is greater than Eldritch Blast at all levels, unless you're using a sub-par weapon."

And, contrarily to you, I don't care at all about proving something that one would be better than the other. I love both.
I just intervened to correct you on a point that is not so important but could induce someone not familiar with 5e in error.

That you cannot even admit such a minor error and push from all your strength to convince others that build A is "better" that build B (which is meaningless in itself) is your own problem. :)

[Spectre9000]

Interesting.
So you're basically saying yourself that a pure Bladelock is not worth it, or otherwise said, that it needs dipping into another class to make it really worthwhile.
Strange way to promote your case... XD


My case? The OP wanted to know how to build a Bladelock and how it competed against as Casterlock. I'm giving my take on how to do what the OP asked for and giving comparisons to Caster locks which generally boil down to EB spam. I think Paladin 11-12/Warlock 7-9/X 0-2 is a better build than Fighter 1/ Bladelock 19 personally. This thread is about Bladelocks, however, and they have some issues that can be mostly overcome, though you have to build for it. Properly built Bladelocks will out damage EB Locks, which the keyword being properly.



To answer your question, well, Warlock still has quite a few interesting spells that require Concentration, so even a Warlock staying at range could fancy a bump to help with survivability and spell permanence.

Or, you could also go close-quarters Blast warlock with Crossbow Expert and Warcaster to spam EB at opportunity (yes, by RAW it works, the wording is different from Quicken restriction), since, you know, you can more easily spend an ASI on feat because less stats to get.

The end of your post is especially funny since YOU yourself brought "blade VS blast" on the table: quoting, "Additionally, Bladelock damage is greater than Eldritch Blast at all levels, unless you're using a sub-par weapon."

And, contrarily to you, I don't care at all about proving something that one would be better than the other. I love both.
I just intervened to correct you on a point that is not so important but could induce someone not familiar with 5e in error.

That you cannot even admit such a minor error and push from all your strength to convince others that build A is "better" that build B (which is meaningless in itself) is your own problem. :)

And what point are you correcting me on exactly? I never said Bladelock was superior in anything other than damage in comparison to EB Lock, which is true, and should be true given the extra danger they put themselves in. Does more damage mean superior build? That's up to you, but you seem to have derived that opinion on your own. There are many objectives for any given build. OP wanted reasons why Bladelock could stack up to Tomelock and explicitly Eldritch Blast. I gave those reason. You seem to just be looking for an argument.

[Saggo]

In a system already geared for your to hit, I don't think advantage to hit is as big a deal, especially since at that point you'll have a +11-14 to hit already, you're not gonna be missing much.

Advantage is the single largest boost to DPR you can get. At AC 18 and +13 attack, you go from 80% to 96% accuracy. At AC 19, its 75% to 93.75%. Those are mooks. At AC 22 (middle of ancient dragon bosses) it's 60% to 84%. A warlock that wants to do competitive damage should always strive for Foresight.

Fortunately, Bladelocks & Blastlocks both can get it.

[Citan]

My case? The OP wanted to know how to build a Bladelock and how it competed against as Casterlock. I'm giving my take on how to do what the OP asked for and giving comparisons to Caster locks which generally boil down to EB spam. I think Paladin 11-12/Warlock 7-9/X 0-2 is a better build than Fighter 1/ Bladelock 19 personally. This thread is about Bladelocks, however, and they have some issues that can be mostly overcome, though you have to build for it. Properly built Bladelocks will out damage EB Locks, which the keyword being properly.



And what point are you correcting me on exactly? I never said Bladelock was superior in anything other than damage in comparison to EB Lock, which is true, and should be true given the extra danger they put themselves in. Does more damage mean superior build? That's up to you, but you seem to have derived that opinion on your own. There are many objectives for any given build. OP wanted reasons why Bladelock could stack up to Tomelock and explicitly Eldritch Blast. I gave those reason. You seem to just be looking for an argument.
My last answer since discussing with someone who doesn't try to read is pointless anyways.

1. I was correcting you on your sentence about armor between STR and DEX build, which was very strongly implying it was always the same, which was WRONG. It's the same in the end, not at start, and only if multiclassing or feats is allowed. That makes a huge difference.

2. As a pure solo point-buy class (or even with lvl 1 Fighter dip) Bladelock is not superior to Eldricht blaster at the end damage-wise, it's just similar in the specific GWM build, otherwise it's inferior. Whereas it's more complicated to build because you need to spend several ASI on stat increase whereas Blaster can spend them on ASI.
(I'm not speaking about niche builds such as one I spoke before where Blaster is strictly superior in damage output).
It can become significantly superior though in any party with buffers (or multiclass) since you can profit from all weapon-related or advantage-giving buffs and help to enable GWM more often. Or if you go roll stats and get lucky.

That's all.

[Spectre9000]

1. I was correcting you on your sentence about armor between STR and DEX build, which was very strongly implying it was always the same, which was WRONG. It's the same in the end, not at start, and only if multiclassing or feats is allowed. That makes a huge difference.


Dex builds start with leather armor, whereas Strength builds start with Chain Mail. At level one, Dex will have AC 14, and Str 16. Cool. At level 1, you're right. However, characters spend very little time as level 1 due to how quickly you level. At level 2 Warlocks pick up Armor of Shadows, which is 13+3 or 16, the same as Chain Mail. At this point the progression of Dex vs Str is dependent on the DM, and how free he/she is with gold, armor, and magic items. If the character is immediately given Plate Armor then Str AC will be higher, however, I've seen plenty of games where Plate wasn't used until 8th or 9th level, at which point Dex builds would have 13+5 or 18, the same as Plate. Of course DM's can also give out a magic item granting static 19 Dex (or more) as an uncommon magic item earlier than 8th level as well. All of this is pointless to discuss because it's all up to DM randomness. The point is that by level 8 or so, Dex builds are at 13+5 (18) AC and Str Builds have Plate, or 18 AC. The path to get there is a little different, but ultimately they achieve the same AC, and thus from an AC stand point is largely irrelevant. If you want to debate the relevance of Dex vs Str you need to talk about their other qualities as they're tied on AC essentially.




2. As a pure solo point-buy class (or even with lvl 1 Fighter dip) Bladelock is not superior to Eldricht blaster at the end damage-wise, it's just similar in the specific GWM build, otherwise it's inferior. Whereas it's more complicated to build because you need to spend several ASI on stat increase whereas Blaster can spend them on ASI.
(I'm not speaking about niche builds such as one I spoke before where Blaster is strictly superior in damage output).
It can become significantly superior though in any party with buffers (or multiclass) since you can profit from all weapon-related or advantage-giving buffs and help to enable GWM more often. Or if you go roll stats and get lucky.

That's all.

Eldritch Blast Lock:
Level 1
9 ADPR = 1D10 + 1D6 (Hex)
Level 2
12 ADPR = 1D10 + Cha(+3) + 1D6 (Hex)
Level 5
27 ADPR = 2D10 + Cha(+4)*2 + 2D6 (Hex)
Level 11
42 ADPR = 3D10 + Cha(+5)*3 + 3D6 (Hex)
Level 17
56 ADPR = 4D10 + Cha(+5)*4 + 4D6 (Hex)


BladeLock (Fighter 1 Dip)
Level 1
12.3 ADPR = 2D6*6/5 (GWFS) + Str(+3)
Level 2
15.8 ADPR = 2D6*6/5 (GWFS) + Str(+3) + 1D6 (Hex)
Level 5
22.4 ADPR = 1D10*10/9 (GWFS) + 1D4(PAM)*4/3 + Str(+3)*2 + 2D6 (Hex)
Level 6
35.1 ADPR = 2D10*10/9 (GWFS) + 1D4(PAM)*4/3 + Str(+3)*3 + 3D6 (Hex)
Level 9
38.1 ADPR = 2D10*10/9 (GWFS) + 1D4(PAM)*4/3 + Str(+4)*3 + 3D6 (Hex)
Level 13
50.1 ADPR = 2D10*10/9 (GWFS) + 1D4(PAM)*4/3 + Str(+5)*3 + Cha(+3)*3 + 3D6 (Hex)
Level 17
80.1 ADPR = 2D10*10/9 (GWFS) + 1D4(PAM)*4/3 + Str(+5)*3 + Cha(+3)*3 + 3D6 (Hex) + 10*3 (GWM)
Level 20
83.1 ADPR = 2D10*10/9 (GWFS) + 1D4(PAM)*4/3 + Str(+5)*3 + Cha(+4)*3 + 3D6 (Hex) + 10*3 (GWM)



Eldritch Blast gets 3 levels of out damaging a BladeLock. I could have removed all EB Lock advantage for those levels by adding GWM earlier, but didn't want to get into a discussion of factoring in chance to hit, and Foresight negates any chance to hit arguments at late levels.

This also doesn't discuss the Opportunity attacks given upon entering reach with PAM, nor the GWM extra attack given on crits and kills (which would change the 1D4 to 1D10), so there's still more damage potential for Bladelock. Also, generally creatures aren't going to leave melee range once they've rushed to it, so the opportunity attacks from Warcaster, or even basic Melee Weapon Opportunity attacks aren't going to be happening too often. Opportunity attacks from PAM on the other hand happen at least once for every creature that enters 10 ft of them (not even necessarily melee for the creature), in addition to leaving a 10 ft reach more often that 5ft due to most creatures not having reach and that still being part of their movement.

Finally, BladeLock could have gotten more damage much earlier if I had gone Variant Human. This also would have allowed me to pick up Spell Sniper and Warcaster as BladeLock and used GFB/BB on Opportunity attacks for entering and leaving reach for stupid extra damage.

[Jrandom]

A benefit of Bladelock which maybe overlooked is that they can take any left-over magic weapon and "transform" it into their Pact Weapon.

Your party gets a +2 Club that no one wants, transform it into your Pact Halberd.

May not be a huge advantage, but always useful.

PHB: 108 "You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon."

[georgie_leech]

Under that reading, it becomes a perfectly ordinary Halberd, which is not much of a boost. Or, your Pact Weapon becomes the +2 Club instead, which is what I believe is what was intended.

[Quintessence]

A benefit of Bladelock which maybe overlooked is that they can take any left-over magic weapon and "transform" it into their Pact Weapon.

Your party gets a +2 Club that no one wants, transform it into your Pact Halberd.

May not be a huge advantage, but always useful.

PHB: 108 "You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon."

That would simply make your pact weapon into a +2 club instead of being able to call whatever you wanted.

[Jrandom]

That would simply make your pact weapon into a +2 club instead of being able to call whatever you wanted.


Under that reading, it becomes a perfectly ordinary Halberd, which is not much of a boost.

Looks like we have 3 possible interpretations, do we have a forth? ;)

[Talamare]

Looks like we have 3 possible interpretations, do we have a forth? ;)

Those 2 are the same interpretation, except one of them is mocking the other interpretation. You know the interpretation that was wrong.

[georgie_leech]

Looks like we have 3 possible interpretations, do we have a forth? ;)

We have three, sort of. We have yours, wherein you claim you can make a +2 Club into a +2 Halberd. We have me pointing out that if we take the idea of physically changing the magic weapon into whatever your Pact Weapon is at face value, this would give you two copies of your non-magical Halberd, since that's what your Pact Weapon currently is and your Pact Weapon doesn't currently have any magical abilities. Then we have the sensible one that both Quintessence and the latter half of my post point out, which is what the vast majority of people interpret it as: by doing a magic ceremony while holding the magic weapon, you can declare it as your Pact Weapon instead of whatever you were using before.

[Zalabim]

Well, I did most of the work already, so I may as well correct it. Only checking the midline average AC where it matters. Not assuming unlimited bonus actions and reactions, though I'll mention the reaction attack in the conclusions. Using one round setup one round active, since one and two isn't a big difference, and will be the rarer opportunity. Damage in the order of Dice, Stats, Hex, (GWM).

V. Human Polearm Master Bladelock with GWF style from Fighter 1 (Starting 16 Str 16 Cha)
Level 1
6.3+3+6=15.3
Level 2
6.3+3+6+7=22.3
/6.3+3+3.5=12.8
22.3/2+12.8/2=17.55
Level 5
6.3+3+8+7=24.3
/6.3+4+3.5=13.8
24.3/2+13.8/2=19.05
Level 6
12.6+3+12+10.5=38.1
12.6+8+7=27.6
38.1/2+27.6/2=32.85
Level 9
12.6+3+15+10.5=41.1
12.6+10+7=29.6
41.1/2+29.6/2=35.35
Level 13
12.6+3+15+12+10.5=53.1
12.6+10+8+7=37.6
53.1/2+37.6/2=45.35
Level 17
[comment]12.6+3+15+12+10.5+30=83.1*.4+crit=34.545(GWM before foresight for comparison)
[comment]12.6+10+8+7+20=57.6*.4+crit=24.02 (GWM before foresight for comparison)
12.6+3+15+15+10.5=56.1*.65+crit=37.77
12.6+10+10+7=39.6*.65+crit=26.72
37.77/2+26.72/2=32.245
Level 18
12.6+3+15+15+10.5=56.1*.8775+crit=51.7725
12.6+10+10+7=39.6*.8775+crit=36.66
51.7725/2+36.66/2=44.21625
Level 20
12.6+3+15+15+10.5+30=86.1*.64+crit=57.64875
12.6+10+10+7+20=59.6*.64+crit=40.055
57.64875/2+40.055/2=48.851875

Any Eldritch Blast Warlock starting 16 Cha.
Level 1
5.5+3.5=9
Level 2
5.5+3+3.5=12
Level 5
11+8+7=26
Level 8
11+10+7=28
Level 11
16.5+15+10.5=42
Level 17
22+20+14=56*.8775+crit=54.6

Noteworthy levels:
Levels 1-4, Polearm Master doesn't even need to use Hex. Level 5 EB does more damage. Level 11, 12 EB does more damage, and PM could deal more damage casting EB on turns where Hex is applied. Level 17-20 EB does more damage. PM could deal more damage from 17-19 by using EB at all times.

As a tactics-dependent variable, the Warlock has a great ranged attack that lets them really take advantage of Polearm Master's OA on entering reach. It will often be better to use EB and Hex on the first turn and only approach for melee attacks on the next turn assuming no enemy takes the bait. As long as enemies provoke an OA attack on most turns, the Polearm Master undoubtedly does more damage.

[Jrandom]

I believe you are mistaking the word "Transform" for the word "Replace," which wasn't used in the RAW.

Transform
verb trans·form \tran(t)s-ˈfȯrm\
Simple Definition of transform
: to change (something) completely and usually in a good way

Replace
verb re·place \ri-ˈplās\
Simple Definition of replace
: to be used instead of (something)
: to do the job or duty of (someone)
: to put someone or something new in the place or position of (someone or something)

Here is the wording for when you create your Pact weapon.

PHB: 107 "You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options)."

And again, the transformation text:

PHB: 108 "You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon."

I will agree that their are multiple legitimate ways to interpret this, but to say my interpretation is wrong is not realistic. I would say that the DM of the campaign would have to put in his two-cents when it occurs.

[Socratov]

I believe you are mistaking the word "Transform" for the word "Replace," which wasn't used in the RAW.

Transform
verb trans·form \tran(t)s-ˈfȯrm\
Simple Definition of transform
: to change (something) completely and usually in a good way

Replace
verb re·place \ri-ˈplās\
Simple Definition of replace
: to be used instead of (something)
: to do the job or duty of (someone)
: to put someone or something new in the place or position of (someone or something)

Here is the wording for when you create your Pact weapon.

PHB: 107 "You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options)."

And again, the transformation text:

PHB: 108 "You can transform one magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon."

I will agree that their are multiple legitimate ways to interpret this, but to say my interpretation is wrong is not realistic. I would say that the DM of the campaign would have to put in his two-cents when it occurs.

If I were in a devious mind and very ruleslawyering I'd say that you can do just that: You could transform a magic club into a halberd, but that doesn't make you proficient with it since it isn't your exact pact weapon. (it cuts both ways).

As (at least to me) the most sensible reading I'd say that the feature allows you to make a magic weapon your pact weapon so you can use that instead of a 'regular' pact weapon. or said shorter: using a ritual you designate a magic weapon to be your pact weapon. It doesn't change shape (it does, however, make you automatically proficient with it because pact weapon features). Though, I'll grant you that it's been written a bit ambiguous.

[Millstone85]

Let's see if I understand the trade-off properly.

Before the ritual, you have a shapeshifting weapon that you can summon and dismiss. Its form is limited to non-magic melee weapons but it overcomes defenses to non-magic. You are also always proficient with it.

After the ritual, a magic weapon that you found, melee or ranged, can now be summoned and dismissed by you. You lose the shapeshifting weapon. Your weapon proficiencies, or lack of, apply to the magic weapon.

The alternative offered by Jrandom is to have the ritual consume a magic weapon to upgrade the shapeshifting melee weapon with its bonuses and magical properties. Somehow, that was my initial reading as well.

Now, I am not sure. With the trade-off, does it ever make sense to do the ritual? The original pact weapon is pretty flavorful and useful. It could stay relevant alongside a magic weapon, either through melee/ranged flexibility or through two-weapon fighting. You would have to really really want to secure your access to a particular magic weapon. Or perhaps it is all about the invocations: the ritual allows you to attack twice with the magic weapon and add necrotic damage.


It doesn't change shape (it does, however, make you automatically proficient with it because pact weapon features). Though, I'll grant you that it's been written a bit ambiguous.In my opinion, the same reading that allows or forbids the magic weapon to shapeshift should also determine if you become proficient with it. You have both or you have neither.

[Segev]

It is pretty clear, given the overall wording of the ability and the nature of language in 5e, that the power is to make a magic weapon into your pact weapon. You can then summon or dismiss it, and use all pact weapon exclusive invocations, etc., on this magic weapon. Because you are not "creating" it, you don't get to choose its form.

The pact weapon by default is not summoned, but created, each time. The magic weapon you ritually transform into your pact weapon is summoned, which means you do not get to change its form because you never create it.

[Millstone85]

Because you are not "creating" it, you don't get to choose its form.
You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter.Emphasis mine. It would suggest that, yes, you do "create" the magic weapon.

Recreate it, perhaps.

[Segev]

Hm. Point. This wording still seems to me to say that you no longer choose the form of your weapon, since specifically the now bound magic weapon appears each time you create the pact weapon.

[Millstone85]

Hm. Point.Genuine unsarcastic thank. Now, pardon me if I press my luck.


This wording still seems to me to say that you no longer choose the form of your weapon, since specifically the now bound magic weapon appears each time you create the pact weapon.Since the original feature has you "choose the form that this melee weapon takes" rather than just choose a melee weapon, I think there is room for the bound magic weapon to appear and take on a different form.

[Segev]

Honestly, it might be something you could talk a DM into, but it seems enough of a stretch and to rely enough on trying to twist words in ways that would be shakey even in more rules lawyer friendly 3.5, that I would hesitate to suggest it as the default reading.

[Socratov]

Genuine unsarcastic thank. Now, pardon me if I press my luck.

Since the original feature has you "choose the form that this melee weapon takes" rather than just choose a melee weapon, I think there is room for the bound magic weapon to appear and take on a different form.

As an aside note I think this kind of writing is also why WotC made the DM's call rule so prominent. Sure, a case can be made, but why else bother with giving out magic weapons in a specific form and not just say: "Warlock, you now have X bonii on your pact blade". I personally agree with Segev and will state that I have seen the devs of WotC been lazy or at best clumsy with writing some of the classfeatures. If you want proof: read through 3.5's Tome of Magic, in particular the section on truename magic. Be prepared to lose your ability to taste icecream though...

But hey, don't let me tell you how to have fun...

[Saggo]

Now, I am not sure. With the trade-off, does it ever make sense to do the ritual? The original pact weapon is pretty flavorful and useful. It could stay relevant alongside a magic weapon, either through melee/ranged flexibility or through two-weapon fighting. You would have to really really want to secure your access to a particular magic weapon. Or perhaps it is all about the invocations: the ritual allows you to attack twice with the magic weapon and add necrotic damage.

The +X bonus of a magic weapon is a pretty potent boost, or more specifically the +X to attack is, the +X to damage just icing. It's a minimum 5% increase in damage with each increment.

[Segev]

The +X bonus of a magic weapon is a pretty potent boost, or more specifically the +X to attack is, the +X to damage just icing. It's a minimum 5% increase in damage with each increment.

I have not looked at magic items in 5e all that much, since I only own a PHB, but I hope that items are more along the lines of the "unique items" in 3e than the "generic tag" items in 3e, given the feel 5e tends to be going for. I would expect that not only is the +X a boost, but that there are other cool "toys" that come with most magic weapons.

That said, since the warlock is automatically proficient with his pact weapon, unless you were using feats or otherwise relying on your pact weapon having a particular form for something other than its damage potential, it will be an improvement because you don't care what shape your weapon is in. You're proficient with it anyway, so the best weapon you can get your hands on will be better than any shape of a basic weapon you might cause it to assume.

[Socratov]

I have not looked at magic items in 5e all that much, since I only own a PHB, but I hope that items are more along the lines of the "unique items" in 3e than the "generic tag" items in 3e, given the feel 5e tends to be going for. I would expect that not only is the +X a boost, but that there are other cool "toys" that come with most magic weapons.
the +x weapons still exist, but with the bounded accuracy popping up unique weapons with unique effects have gotten more attention

That said, since the warlock is automatically proficient with his pact weapon, unless you were using feats or otherwise relying on your pact weapon having a particular form for something other than its damage potential, it will be an improvement because you don't care what shape your weapon is in. You're proficient with it anyway, so the best weapon you can get your hands on will be better than any shape of a basic weapon you might cause it to assume.

depends on the effect, your pact weapon is already assumed to be magic for the purpose of overcoming DR...

[Jrandom]

I think Millstone85 has great logic! :smallbiggrin:

[Saggo]

I have not looked at magic items in 5e all that much, since I only own a PHB, but I hope that items are more along the lines of the "unique items" in 3e than the "generic tag" items in 3e, given the feel 5e tends to be going for. I would expect that not only is the +X a boost, but that there are other cool "toys" that come with most magic weapons.

There's plenty of unique weapons usually with some sort of +X on it, as well as generic +X magic weapons. As boring as it is, the bonus to hit is usually the biggest contributer to DPR.

[Millstone85]

As an aside note I think this kind of writing is also why WotC made the DM's call rule so prominent. Sure, a case can be made, but why else bother with giving out magic weapons in a specific form and not just say: "Warlock, you now have X bonii on your pact blade".I think this is what the DMG calls a blessing, page 227. But using one here would deny the warlock an occasion to, say, steal a ritual dagger from a foe, harness the weapon's enchantment and give it a new more powerful shape. Come on, it is called a Pact of the Blade, do some "weapon magic"!

If I were the DM, I would at the very least give the player the option to summon a regular pact weapon while the magic one stays in its extradimensional space.


Honestly, it might be something you could talk a DM into, but it seems enough of a stretch and to rely enough on trying to twist words in ways that would be shakey even in more rules lawyer friendly 3.5, that I would hesitate to suggest it as the default reading.
I think Millstone85 has great logic! :smallbiggrin:I really don't know what's the RAW or RAI here but I fear there might be some sort of "In doubt, the weaker interpretation is the right one" rule going on. Anyway, I am all out of arguments.

[CantigThimble]

I really don't know what's the RAW or RAI here but I fear there might be some sort of "In doubt, the weaker interpretation is the right one" rule going on. Anyway, I am all out of arguments.

That does seem to be a general attitude in discussions of D&D. I think it's a part of being a DM as a lot of players will stretch RAW a little bit when they really want something to work and DMs get used to shutting that down a lot.

[Segev]

I really don't know what's the RAW or RAI here but I fear there might be some sort of "In doubt, the weaker interpretation is the right one" rule going on. Anyway, I am all out of arguments.

It's more, "The colloquial use of this phrasing would indicate that you're making this particular weapon your pact weapon. It requires reading into potential interactions between two well-separated clauses to 'realize' that you could possibly shapeshift a magic weapon through this feature. Because it requires reading into it, and it doesn't say you can, it probably doesn't. But, being 5e, you still might be able to talk your DM into it."

[Saggo]

That does seem to be a general attitude in discussions of D&D. I think it's a part of being a DM as a lot of players will stretch RAW a little bit when they really want something to work and DMs get used to shutting that down a lot.

It's also a public forum. In a game where literally anything can be changed by a DM (and so every discussion can be ended with "whatever the DM says"), you need a baseline to talk publicly. A "What does the game allow us to do, as published?" starting point. The published rules are the only thing different tables have in common.

[CantigThimble]

It's also a public forum. In a game where literally anything can be changed by a DM (and so every discussion can be ended with "whatever the DM says"), you need a baseline to talk publicly. A "What does the game allow us to do, as published?" starting point. The published rules are the only thing different tables have in common.

I'm not questioning or denying that at all. I'm talking about the specific cases (like above) where there are multiple logical interpretations of "What the game allows you to do as published."

[Segev]

I'm not questioning or denying that at all. I'm talking about the specific cases (like above) where there are multiple logical interpretations of "What the game allows you to do as published."

It could be as you say, then; I don't think it always comes out that way, though. It does in this case due to how much effort has to go into finding the "shapeshift a magic weapon" interpretation. Especially since, if that was the intent, it would have been easier to write it something like, "You can perform a special ritual to absorb that weapon's features into your pact weapon" or something like that, making it clear the pact weapon gained magic tags, rather than the magic weapon becoming your (fixed) pact weapon.

"The simplest, most straight-forward reading is probably the right one" is more where I'm coming from, though I admit "simple and straight-forward" doesn't always mean the same thing from person to person. Especially with confirmation bias being so powerful a force.

[Saggo]

Wasn't arguing, just adding.

[AstralFire]

If it matters, I had previously read it as meaning that the pact blade could shift the weapon shape after making a magic weapon your pact weapon, but after this argument, I find myself on the side that that's an unintended effect.

[Millstone85]

The colloquial use of this phrasing would indicate that you're making this particular weapon your pact weapon. It requires reading into potential interactions between two well-separated clauses to 'realize' that you could possibly shapeshift a magic weapon through this feature.
I admit "simple and straight-forward" doesn't always mean the same thing from person to person.
If it matters, I had previously read it as meaning that the pact blade could shift the weapon shape after making a magic weapon your pact weapon, but after this argument, I find myself on the side that that's an unintended effect.That's my problem, yes. Someone had to make me "realize" that it was not possible. It took me a more minute reading of the rules to see that the Pact of the Blade feature might have been written in a compartmentalized manner where this clause and that clause had nothing to do with each other.

And what really annoyed me then is that the bit about the warlock gaining proficiency with their pact weapon is found in the paragraph about the default pact weapon, not the one that details the special ritual and its effects. So, by that line of reasoning, the warlock does not become proficient with a magic weapon made into a pact weapon anymore than they can shapeshift it.

Now I see many people who consider that you can't choose the form of a magic weapon but you do become proficient with it. That's what leaves me wondering if my initial impression might have been right after all.

Edit: But I will admit that a colloquial reading of "it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter" could negate the whole shapeshifting business. Meanwhile, nothing contradicts the warlock's previously stated proficiency with their pact weapon. So maybe it is as most people here think.

Edit 2: Yeah, okay, I am convinced. The weapon reappears exactly as it was before the ritual, only you are proficient with it and PotB invocations recognize it. That's easy and fair.

[CantigThimble]

Wasn't arguing, just adding.

My bad, I always find things like this confusing because I don't have a tone of voice to go off of. I think about 70% of arguments that happen on the internet are caused by that.

[Jrandom]

My issue was the word that they picked being "Transform," when they could of easily used the word "Replace" or "Exchange." Transform gives the connotation that the magic weapon keeps it's essence but is improved in some fashion, where exchange or replace is more inline with a lot of what the people in this thread are assuming.

[Malifice]

Well, I did most of the work already, so I may as well correct it. Only checking the midline average AC where it matters. Not assuming unlimited bonus actions and reactions, though I'll mention the reaction attack in the conclusions. Using one round setup one round active, since one and two isn't a big difference, and will be the rarer opportunity. Damage in the order of Dice, Stats, Hex, (GWM).

V. Human Polearm Master Bladelock with GWF style from Fighter 1 (Starting 16 Str 16 Cha)
Level 1
6.3+3+6=15.3
Level 2
6.3+3+6+7=22.3
/6.3+3+3.5=12.8
22.3/2+12.8/2=17.55
Level 5
6.3+3+8+7=24.3
/6.3+4+3.5=13.8
24.3/2+13.8/2=19.05
Level 6
12.6+3+12+10.5=38.1
12.6+8+7=27.6
38.1/2+27.6/2=32.85
Level 9
12.6+3+15+10.5=41.1
12.6+10+7=29.6
41.1/2+29.6/2=35.35
Level 13
12.6+3+15+12+10.5=53.1
12.6+10+8+7=37.6
53.1/2+37.6/2=45.35
Level 17
[comment]12.6+3+15+12+10.5+30=83.1*.4+crit=34.545(GWM before foresight for comparison)
[comment]12.6+10+8+7+20=57.6*.4+crit=24.02 (GWM before foresight for comparison)
12.6+3+15+15+10.5=56.1*.65+crit=37.77
12.6+10+10+7=39.6*.65+crit=26.72
37.77/2+26.72/2=32.245
Level 18
12.6+3+15+15+10.5=56.1*.8775+crit=51.7725
12.6+10+10+7=39.6*.8775+crit=36.66
51.7725/2+36.66/2=44.21625
Level 20
12.6+3+15+15+10.5+30=86.1*.64+crit=57.64875
12.6+10+10+7+20=59.6*.64+crit=40.055
57.64875/2+40.055/2=48.851875

Any Eldritch Blast Warlock starting 16 Cha.
Level 1
5.5+3.5=9
Level 2
5.5+3+3.5=12
Level 5
11+8+7=26
Level 8
11+10+7=28
Level 11
16.5+15+10.5=42
Level 17
22+20+14=56*.8775+crit=54.6

Noteworthy levels:
Levels 1-4, Polearm Master doesn't even need to use Hex. Level 5 EB does more damage. Level 11, 12 EB does more damage, and PM could deal more damage casting EB on turns where Hex is applied. Level 17-20 EB does more damage. PM could deal more damage from 17-19 by using EB at all times.

As a tactics-dependent variable, the Warlock has a great ranged attack that lets them really take advantage of Polearm Master's OA on entering reach. It will often be better to use EB and Hex on the first turn and only approach for melee attacks on the next turn assuming no enemy takes the bait. As long as enemies provoke an OA attack on most turns, the Polearm Master undoubtedly does more damage.

These numbers dont match my experiences at all.

A Fiend lock 8/ BM fighter 3 (aiming for lock 17/ Fighter 3) is pumping out some consistent and serious damage. Vuman with 2 x 16's in Str* and Cha, a Dex of 8, HAM, Warcaster (used with GFB) and GWM/S. Precise strike, Trip attack, Riposte. Generally spamming Hex on round 1 and keeping slot two open for a fireball, hellish rebuke or mirror image (as needed), then maintaining hex over a short rest, and then spamming 2 x fireball, hellish rebuke or mirror image, or re-establishing hex each short rest thereafter.

Packing a Greatsword of life stealing as a pact weapon and gauntlets of Ogre power* for Str of 19. The greatsword doesnt come into play that often TBH.

Tanks like a boss too. AC 18, 84 hp, DR 3/- and milking 11 Temp HP each round from dropping creatures. Occasionally has Mirror image up. Has riposte and hellish rebuke for out of turn porcipine DPR.

[Zalabim]

That's probably because your experience has little in common with a level 1 fighter dip Polearm Master, being neither a 1 level dip nor a polearm master. There's nothing wrong with that. I was only posting to correct some of Spectre's assumptions. I think Warlock makes a good primary for a versatile and tough frontliner. It stands up alongside and distinct from Fighter and Paladin builds.

I will take this opportunity to reiterate for both these builds that the actual Pact of the Blade has little benefit. Fighter already gives proficiency with all weapons and Malifice's warlock has a magic weapon from the campaign. The invocations still support the style, though Lifedrinker would provide more benefit as 1d8 than +cha modifier. This is even true at +5 charisma modifer when the relative crit chance and accuracy are right, as with Advantage or using GWM's power attack.

[Malifice]

That's probably because your experience has little in common with a level 1 fighter dip Polearm Master, being neither a 1 level dip nor a polearm master. There's nothing wrong with that. I was only posting to correct some of Spectre's assumptions. I think Warlock makes a good primary for a versatile and tough frontliner. It stands up alongside and distinct from Fighter and Paladin builds.

I will take this opportunity to reiterate for both these builds that the actual Pact of the Blade has little benefit. Fighter already gives proficiency with all weapons and Malifice's warlock has a magic weapon from the campaign. The invocations still support the style, though Lifedrinker would provide more benefit as 1d8 than +cha modifier. This is even true at +5 charisma modifer when the relative crit chance and accuracy are right, as with Advantage or using GWM's power attack.

The fighter levels do really help. The damage spike from hex plus action surge plus precise strike/ trip attack for advantage coupled with GWM is not to be sneezed at. Nova strikes (that recharge on a short rest) of 100+ damage are not uncommon (increasing to 150 odd damage with hellish rebuke if I need it) and it chugs along at a respectable 50+ Points of reliable damage per round.

I'm not missing lifedrinker that much - it's the extra slot at 11th that I'd have now and don't have that hurts. It was a conscious decision to sacrifice spell advancement for Melee oomph.

When forced into ranged (EB plus hex plus agonising blast) I dislike it immensely as my damage drops considerably. It's nice to have as an option though. I do conserve spell slots at range as hex is at less risk of dropping and I'm less reliant on hellish rebuke and mirror image.

There is an unseen bonus to the fiend pact for getting into melee. 5e is very mook heavy so I find I can top up my temp HP most rounds (although I do find myself mook hunting and kill sniping a lot!). Coupled with HAM I'm soaking a lot of damage each round - so much so to be on par with the barbarian. Once I get 3 slots per SR at warlock 11 I plan to make much more use of Armor of agathys - by then lll have 25 temp HP up after every short rest, resistance to one type of damage of my choice and DR/3 - with the added bonus of porcupine damage increasing my DPR in ways a ranged lock couldn't.

The magic sword doesn't come into play that often. It only triggers on a 20 and the 2 or three times it has gone off the temp hit points didn't even help (I already had more than what I rolled).

There are all sorts of hidden benefits to a melee lock. They make surprisingly good tanks if your DM uses a fair amount of mooks, and can really do some impressive damage.

There are a lot of variables that affect them though - number of short rests, length of AD and percentage of Mooks.

One things for certain though - con saves and warcaster are musts. I wouldn't play one without taking my 1st level in Fighter at a minimum.

[Segev]

My issue was the word that they picked being "Transform," when they could of easily used the word "Replace" or "Exchange." Transform gives the connotation that the magic weapon keeps it's essence but is improved in some fashion, where exchange or replace is more inline with a lot of what the people in this thread are assuming.

It is "improved in some fashion:" It now grants you proficiency in it even if you didn't have it before, can be banished and summoned at your will, and benefits from any invocations you have which improve your pact blade.

It does not give it any more abilities than that. Since that specific weapon is what appears every time you create your pact weapon, you don't get to change its form anymore. (But if your DM will let you, great!)