Is it worth losing 1/3 loot for eldritch glaive and practiced spellcaster?

[Almostdead]

I am going to play an campaign from lv1 to lv20. And I am planning to be a glaivelock (cleric4/warlock1/eldritch disciple etc.). However, my DM only allows PHB, Complete series(except psionic) and magic item compendium. Though he let me use glaive invocation and practiced spellcaster feat to increase eldritch damage. He give me a choice to either keep both of them but lose 1/3 loot in whole campaign; or just pick one of them and lose nothing.
Losing glaive would change the whole build I want to play and practiced spellcaster is also quite important.

What should I do? Is it worth the price to keep both of them？

Ps: I am not a native speaker so please forgive me if there are any grammatical mistakes.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So you have to lose a third of your WBL (an absolute necessity for the vast majority of characters, to the point where it adds more than one's class does, much of the time) to actually be able to use your own class features?

Not worth it. At all. Not unless you can make up for it in other ways, such as through feats like Ancestral Relic and Item Familiar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568942-Feats-that-Grant-Scaling-Magic-Items). If you really, really want to play a glaivelock and think you can get away with getting magic items in other ways (see the link), then sure, go for it.

[Nifft]

I think Maxi is right -- that's a bad trade.

[Almostdead]

So you have to lose a third of your WBL (an absolute necessity for the vast majority of characters, to the point where it adds more than one's class does, much of the time) to actually be able to use your own class features?

Not worth it. At all. Not unless you can make up for it in other ways, such as through feats like Ancestral Relic and Item Familiar If you really, really want to play a glaivelock and think you can get away with getting magic items in other ways (see the link), then sure, go for it.

Since eldritch glaive is an invocation from dragon magic, it is legit for DM not allowing me to use it.
And I don't think i can get those fancy items and feats you mentioned.
I am pretty sure I want to play a warlock/cleric build. But I don't know how to combine their combat style except through fighter/cleric way.
Let's say if I kept practiced spellcaster, can you give me some suggestion on how to utilize this build?
Thank you!

[Crake]

Glaivelock is overrated, using the invocation is a full round action, so you can't just have it out while doing other things. I have no idea why he's making you choose between that and practised spellcaster though, since that's from one of the books he allows.

[Almostdead]

Glaivelock is overrated, using the invocation is a full round action, so you can't just have it out while doing other things. I have no idea why he's making you choose between that and practised spellcaster though, since that's from one of the books he allows.

Eldritch glaive is an invocation from dragon magic. And you have to get DM's permission to apply practiced spellcaster to eldritch damage, since it is debatable.
And I originally going to pick travel devotion to ease the disadvantage.
But since it is a bad trade. Can you give me other suggestion on this cleric/warlock build?

[Troacctid]

Use eldritch chain instead.

[PunBlake]

Personally, I'd choose "apply Practiced Spellcaster to eldritch blast damage" of the two options provided. +2d6 is nice. The glaive, by comparison, is situational.

Ask your DM if he will allow Mystic Theurge (DMG) for your last 5 levels to finish out your double casting after Eldritch Disciple, assuming you make it that far. The fact that warlocks don't technically qualify is dumb, so make sure you have permission. (It's substituting the requirement "Arcane Caster Level 5th" for "able to cast arcane spells of 3rd level." Not game breaking or anything.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's not how eldritch blast and practiced spellcaster interact. Your cl doesn't determine the damage dice of eldritch blast, your (effective) warlock level does. The +4 cl just helps you get past SR and boosts range and duration on invocations that mimic spells (read the specific invocation description for details).

Just lose practiced spellcaster and keep your wealth.

[Almostdead]

Personally, I'd choose "apply Practiced Spellcaster to eldritch blast damage" of the two options provided. +2d6 is nice. The glaive, by comparison, is situational.

Ask your DM if he will allow Mystic Theurge (DMG) for your last 5 levels to finish out your double casting after Eldritch Disciple, assuming you make it that far. The fact that warlocks don't technically qualify is dumb, so make sure you have permission. (It's substituting the requirement "Arcane Caster Level 5th" for "able to cast arcane spells of 3rd level." Not game breaking or anything.)

Thank you for your suggestion. Maybe I will ask DM later. He has been calling me OP since I want to use glaive and practiced spellcaster at the same time. :smalleek:

[Almostdead]

Q: Would Practiced Spellcaster allow for Blast damage progression?
A: I think it should, but I doubt that the language of the feat and eldritch blast description specifically allow it. (If eldritch blast were written in such a way that it dealt damage based on the warlock's caster level, it would be fine. But the damage is based on the warlock's class level. While those two things are almost always going to be the same, you have to take a pretty liberal interpretation to let Practiced Spellcaster work on eldritch blast.)

So It is up to DM IMO.

[OgresAreCute]

So It is up to DM IMO.

"The actual designer/author of the class said it would be fine" sounds like a pretty convincing argument at most tables.

[Silly Name]

"The actual designer/author of the class said it would be fine" sounds like a pretty convincing argument at most tables.

Well, the quote says that the author thinks it should, but also recognises that the wording wouldn't allow for it. Depending on who you play with, RAW can go over RAI, and in this case we aren't even in a "healing by drowning" argument where RAW is clearly ridicolous.