Is it too much to ask for MM feats for warlock?

[Almostdead]

I am going to play a warlock. But my DM only allows Complete series and MIC. So he refused to let me pick Monster Manual feats like Quicken Spell-Like Ability/Empower Spell-Like Ability etc. (and he thinks that would be fair to other players). In my opinion, since "picking MM feats" is in the basic class description of warlock, it should be allowed (at least for Quicken Spell-Like Ability/Empower Spell-Like Ability).

The save DC for an invocation (if it allows a save) is 10 + equivalent spell level + the warlock's Charisma modifier. Since spell-like abilities are not actually spells, a warlock cannot benefit from the Spell Focus feat. He can, however, benefit from the Ability Focus feat (see page 303 of the Monster Manual), as well as from feats that emulate metamagic effects for spell-like abilities, such as Quicken Spell-Like Ability and Empower Spell-Like Ability (see pages 303 and 304 of the Monster Manual).

What do you guys think? :smallconfused:

[Eldonauran]

Personally, I think the DM is being a bit tight fisted but is well within their rights to limit source material. I don't agree with it, as I happen to be a more permissive DM and see nothing wrong with letting you pick from a CORE book, even though it is one of the books that the DM should have exclusive access to.

Your options are limited. Only advice I can give is deal with it and try to have fun anyway.

[RoboEmperor]

I am going to play a warlock. But my DM only allows Complete series and MIC. So he refused to let me pick Monster Manual feats like Quicken Spell-Like Ability/Empower Spell-Like Ability etc. (and he thinks that would be fair to other players). In my opinion, since "picking MM feats" is in the basic class description of warlock, it should be allowed (at least for Quicken Spell-Like Ability/Empower Spell-Like Ability).

The save DC for an invocation (if it allows a save) is 10 + equivalent spell level + the warlock's Charisma modifier. Since spell-like abilities are not actually spells, a warlock cannot benefit from the Spell Focus feat. He can, however, benefit from the Ability Focus feat (see page 303 of the Monster Manual), as well as from feats that emulate metamagic effects for spell-like abilities, such as Quicken Spell-Like Ability and Empower Spell-Like Ability (see pages 303 and 304 of the Monster Manual).

What do you guys think? :smallconfused:

DM is a tool. You should leave. Not letting you use a CORE feat is tantamount to noob****ness. This won't be the only problem you'll be having with the DM.

[Troacctid]

I mean, it's kind of an odd ruling, but it's not like there's any shortage of other feats for you to take. Maximize Spell-Like Ability is still on the table, Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot are entirely reasonable (albeit boring), the Fey Heritage line offers Fey Power as an alternative DC boost that applies to all your invocations, Obtain Familiar and Improved Familiar are fantastic, item creation feats are still good, and you can never go too far wrong picking Extra Invocation. Heck, maybe the DM even allows Leadership.

So, like, whatever. Let them be that way. You'll be fine.

[JNAProductions]

Is the game otherwise fun?

Because if this is one in a long list of things that's horse malarky, then leave. If it's the one example of "Hey, that's not cool!" in an otherwise good game, stick around and get over it.

To me, this is a minor ruling that I don't like. I disagree with it, but if the game is good, it's certainly not worth leaving over.

[Troacctid]

For your convenience, here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZqsXKR9O0Ou9-q8o0iR16geBwgw1wJSi6uMMQ5LUQH8/edit#gid=0&fvid=1260840674) is a compilation of recommended warlock feats from Core + Completes.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

What level are you starting at?

Your DM is being unreasonable IMO, considering any spellcaster could summon creatures and take the forms of things from the MM. Why should that book be off limits to you?

If you feel like your character will be weaker due to that ruling, then consider playing something different but similar, and give it the same flavor as you were originally going for. A Sorcerer with reserve feats (CM) and Heighten Spell so you can always count your highest-level slot for how strong those will be could be suitable. Fiery Burst, Summon Elemental, and maybe Storm Bolt are good choices of reserve feats. Learn plenty of area-effect save-or-lose spells otherwise, like Color Spray, Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Slow, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles, etc.

[Troacctid]

What level are you starting at?

Your DM is being unreasonable IMO, considering any spellcaster could summon creatures and take the forms of things from the MM. Why should that book be off limits to you?

If you feel like your character will be weaker due to that ruling, then consider playing something different but similar, and give it the same flavor as you were originally going for. A Sorcerer with reserve feats (CM) and Heighten Spell so you can always count your highest-level slot for how strong those will be could be suitable. Fiery Burst, Summon Elemental, and maybe Storm Bolt are good choices of reserve feats. Learn plenty of area-effect save-or-lose spells otherwise, like Color Spray, Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Slow, Stinking Cloud, Black Tentacles, etc.
Or, alternatively, what would be even more similar would be...a warlock with different feats.

Here, a sample feat setup:

H. Point Blank Shot
1. Precise Shot
3. Obtain Familiar
6. Improved Familiar
9. Craft Wondrous Item
12. Extra Invocation
15. Extra Invocation
18. Craft Contingent Spell

And here's another one:

H. Fey Heritage
1. Fey Skin
3. Fey Power
6. Fey Presence
9. Fey Legacy
12. Craft Wondrous Item
15. Scribe Scroll
18. Craft Contingent Spell

I could go on.

[DeTess]

If the game is fun apart from that, I'd just roll with it. However, I would bring up the fact that a caster summoning creatures can use the MM as a source for those creatures, to see if it changes the DM's mind.

[Blackhawk748]

I would point out that those feats are supposed to be your Metamagic feats and so letting the other casters have theirs and you not have yours is rather unfair

[Goaty14]

No, it's not too much. Pretty sure warlocks deal decent enough damage as it is, and thus don't *need* the <Metamagic> SLA feats. If you really must whine about it, the Sudden <Metamagic> feats are still available for your use (most likely).

[Troacctid]

No, it's not too much. Pretty sure warlocks deal decent enough damage as it is, and thus don't *need* the <Metamagic> SLA feats. If you really must whine about it, the Sudden <Metamagic> feats are still available for your use (most likely).
Ehhhh, the damage is actually pretty mediocre, and Sudden Quicken isn't really a thing.

[Pleh]

No, it's not too much. Pretty sure warlocks deal decent enough damage as it is, and thus don't *need* the <Metamagic> SLA feats. If you really must whine about it, the Sudden <Metamagic> feats are still available for your use (most likely).

Well, the damage comparison will naturally depend on how optimized the group.

I mean, Eldritch Blast base damage is the same as Sneak Attack (assuming no optimization and straight level to level comparison), but while the rogue has to do something to get Sneak Attack to trigger, they add weapon damage and can full attack to throw that damage in multiple attacks.

Eldritch blast is pretty reliable, as ranged touch attacks are just useful at about every level, but you don't get to double down on it the same way. And it's practically nothing next to a bog standard Fireball. At the level Eldritch Blast is doing 3d6 to a single target, fireball is doing 5d6 to every target in 20 ft or half that on a failed save.

Anydice tells me that the average of 5d6/2 is only a point or two behind a full 3d6 average.

So I see eldritch blast as similar to a normalized Rogue. They peak in power slightly less, but they fizzle far less often, too, so they deal consistent damage that only just meets the standards for contributing to at level encounters.

[Ashiel]

Problem is eldritch blast doesn't benefit from base weapon damage, enhancement modifiers, ability modifiers, and is subject to spell resistance, and is a standard action; whereas a rogue - which is actually a pretty trash class without some heavy opt - is going to be making multiple attacks per round, and at higher levels when enemies have more HP, will be hasted and very likely near permanently stealthed via concealment based effects. Even then, said Rogue is probably outdamaged by a more traditional martial due to things like to-hit differences.

10d6 is only an average of 35 damage. That's actually pretty terrible as a standard action. :smallannoyed:

[Blackhawk748]

10d6 is only an average of 35 damage. That's actually pretty terrible as a standard action. :smallannoyed:

Its why i can never bring myself to play a Warlock who doesnt have Mortal Bane, that extra damage is really helpful at low levels (as it gets you on par with Scorching Ray, at least for one ray) and never really dies off. Not having Meta SLA feats is a bit of a kick in the pants.

[Fizban]

since "picking MM feats" is in the basic class description of warlock, it should be allowed (at least for Quicken Spell-Like Ability/Empower Spell-Like Ability).
Indeed. This is one of the few instances where you can actually draw parallels to the "core wizard problem." Are they allowing wizards to take all the problematic core spells and use them however they want, because "they're in the PHB and wizards are expected to have them" ? If they are, then the fact that they're refusing feats the Warlock was explicitly expected to have available is complete bull. Especially when, as pointed out, standard summon spells use the MM (as does Polymorph, and Animal Companions, and Paladin Mounts, and Familiars, and. . .)

If the DM also nerfs and restricts stuff heavily for other classes, then it might be okay. But I'd bet that they're still allowing the other players everything from books that don't have "monster" in the name, even though half of those books are still DM oriented content and having immediate free access to them is far more disruptive. Restricting things for no other reason than they're book they're in is sloppy and ineffective, even when you're not applying it unevenly like this.

In particular, if they're allowing Reserve feats (from "Complete" Mage of course) so full casters can infringe upon Warlock territory, while refusing to let you have feats that increase your 1/2 standard spell damage to standard spell damage a few times per day, then they have no legs to stand on. Complete Mage and Complete Champion are obviously, demonstrably far more powerful than the core and first wave of "complete"s, and that's not even counting the power creep in MiC.

Dunno what to suggest. I'd say you should make a strong statement, even though it will probably be viewed as petulant and/or passive aggressive. Sure, you could take other feats, but this restriction goes directly against the class's own entry. You could try to lean on the MiC and buy a bunch of pairs of Gauntlets of Energy Admixture, and when they complain that you shouldn't be able to use more than one point out that you wouldn't have done so in the first place if they hadn't taken away some of your class's core feats. You could play a wizard who spams Reserve feats until it's time to bust out the heavily metamagic'd full spells that put a standard warlock to shame. You could just refuse to play a warlock.

You could try to send the DM to look at this thread, but I'd expect that hardly ever works, and there are a surprising amount of people just saying "eh". I'm one of the most vocal when it comes to gutting "core" spells are "standard" fighter builds in order to prevent game problems , but this is actually a root enough issue that I would pretty categorically reject it. You have to go past no-op and into anti-op in order to reach the point where removing the expected meta-SLA feats from the Warlock is neccesary to keep game balance (of any sort).

Ask if there is any other reason besides "they're in the Monster Manual." Demand any other reason. This is not some obscure OP thing, this is not an entire book of stuff meant for DMs only. This is a standard feat mentioned specifically in the base class description, from the same core book from which half the other base classes in core draw one or more features.

[Almostdead]

For your convenience, here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZqsXKR9O0Ou9-q8o0iR16geBwgw1wJSi6uMMQ5LUQH8/edit#gid=0&fvid=1260840674) is a compilation of recommended warlock feats from Core + Completes.

Thank you so much!
And thank others too!
I'll try to "negotiate" with my DM...

[Eldonauran]

...and there are a surprising amount of people just saying "eh"My saying "eh" was made with the assumption that the DM is being consistent with his rules. There is no reason I have to assume otherwise. Even if he is not being entirely consistent, I'd still might answer "eh" as I do not assume complete "fairness" in a system that isn't designed for equality of outcome. If those are the rules I am to play under (assuming I was in the OP's place), I'd find a way to have fun within those rules. If the rule annoys me, I'll get over it. If the game starts to annoy me, I'll find another.

[Almostdead]

Indeed. This is one of the few instances where you can actually draw parallels to the "core wizard problem." Are they allowing wizards to take all the problematic core spells and use them however they want, because "they're in the PHB and wizards are expected to have them" ? If they are, then the fact that they're refusing feats the Warlock was explicitly expected to have available is complete bull. Especially when, as pointed out, standard summon spells use the MM (as does Polymorph, and Animal Companions, and Paladin Mounts, and Familiars, and. . .)

If the DM also nerfs and restricts stuff heavily for other classes, then it might be okay. But I'd bet that they're still allowing the other players everything from books that don't have "monster" in the name, even though half of those books are still DM oriented content and having immediate free access to them is far more disruptive. Restricting things for no other reason than they're book they're in is sloppy and ineffective, even when you're not applying it unevenly like this.

In particular, if they're allowing Reserve feats (from "Complete" Mage of course) so full casters can infringe upon Warlock territory, while refusing to let you have feats that increase your 1/2 standard spell damage to standard spell damage a few times per day, then they have no legs to stand on. Complete Mage and Complete Champion are obviously, demonstrably far more powerful than the core and first wave of "complete"s, and that's not even counting the power creep in MiC.

Dunno what to suggest. I'd say you should make a strong statement, even though it will probably be viewed as petulant and/or passive aggressive. Sure, you could take other feats, but this restriction goes directly against the class's own entry. You could try to lean on the MiC and buy a bunch of pairs of Gauntlets of Energy Admixture, and when they complain that you shouldn't be able to use more than one point out that you wouldn't have done so in the first place if they hadn't taken away some of your class's core feats. You could play a wizard who spams Reserve feats until it's time to bust out the heavily metamagic'd full spells that put a standard warlock to shame. You could just refuse to play a warlock.

You could try to send the DM to look at this thread, but I'd expect that hardly ever works, and there are a surprising amount of people just saying "eh". I'm one of the most vocal when it comes to gutting "core" spells are "standard" fighter builds in order to prevent game problems , but this is actually a root enough issue that I would pretty categorically reject it. You have to go past no-op and into anti-op in order to reach the point where removing the expected meta-SLA feats from the Warlock is neccesary to keep game balance (of any sort).

Ask if there is any other reason besides "they're in the Monster Manual." Demand any other reason. This is not some obscure OP thing, this is not an entire book of stuff meant for DMs only. This is a standard feat mentioned specifically in the base class description, from the same core book from which half the other base classes in core draw one or more features.

Thanks for the suggestions!:smallsmile:
I'll try to talk to my DM, but he is a man of high ego...:smallconfused:
Anyway, thanks!

[Torpin]

"Since spell-like abilities are not actual spells a warlock cannot benefit from the Spell Focus feat. He can however benefit from the Ability Focus feat (see page 303 of the monster manual) as well as from feats that emulate metamagic effects for spell-like abilities such as Quicken Spell-Like ability and Empower Spell-Like Ability (see pages 303 and 304 of the Monster Manual)"

I mean there is no ambiguity here, it list specifics feats you can take.

[Goaty14]

Problem is eldritch blast doesn't benefit from base weapon damage, enhancement modifiers, ability modifiers, and is subject to spell resistance, and is a standard action; whereas a rogue - which is actually a pretty trash class without some heavy opt - is going to be making multiple attacks per round, and at higher levels when enemies have more HP, will be hasted and very likely near permanently stealthed via concealment based effects. Even then, said Rogue is probably outdamaged by a more traditional martial due to things like to-hit differences.

10d6 is only an average of 35 damage. That's actually pretty terrible as a standard action. :smallannoyed:

So why are we comparing a heavily optimized rogue to an out-of-the-box warlock again? At the very least, you grab the one item from the MiC that adds 2d6 to make the 10d6 a 12d6. If your group knows anything about optimization, then you snag some Hellfire Warlock levels (+Naberius Dip) to add an effective 3d6 (=15d6).

...and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other sources of damage boosting though (and don't even get me started on Eldritch Glaive/Claws).

[Telonius]

The ruling seems kind of dumb; Warlock is a class that's kind of on the border between Tier 3 and Tier 4. (JaronK originally pegged it at Tier 4; the Retiering Thread has it as a Tier 3). This is not a class that needs any nerfing. That said, there are other, better things you could do with those feat slots than spending them on Ability Focus or the Meta-Ability feats. Ability Focus is a small boost that doesn't scale. Empower and Quicken Spell-Like are 3/day. You want something that's more powerful or versatile than that.

[Ashiel]

Further, the only reason the feats are in the monster manual to begin with is because they pertain to monsters more often than to player characters. SLAs are common on creatures, but nothing beyond simply having them is a prerequisite for the feats in question.

It's as asinine as saying that monster NPCs cannot take any feats found in the Player's Handbook because they aren't players.

[Fizban]

So why are we comparing a heavily optimized rogue to an out-of-the-box warlock again?
It doesn't take heavy optimization for a rogue to get considerably more numbers on paper. At 8th level you have two iterative attacks, and Improved Invisibility+ rogue with bow is one of the most basic and obvious combos in the game (and the attack bonuses from being invisible help offset some of their reduced attack). It's not fair to assume the rogue will hit with all attacks all the time, but the potential damage of even a vanilla rogue in a vanilla party is quite disheartening to a Warlock with no daily boosters- and they only need one hit from their multiple attacks to match you. You deal half the damage of spells and the rogue can do the same damage multiple times per turn, you need something to make that blast feel like it's not a trap. Access to the meta-SLA feats has got you covered, or it's supposed to.

At high levels you can Maximize one blast and then Quicken a second, for almost (but not actually quite) three blasts worth- which is less than three sneak attacks due to weapons, or roughly one bog-standard Empowered spell. That's at 12th level, the same level full BABs are making three attacks (four with haste), and rogues are making 2-3 (not counting Rapid Shot or TWF), and that's where the Warlock caps out. If they spent two feats at 12th they can do this for 3 rounds/day, and at 18th they could have spent two more feats to have a total of 6 rounds/day. All of your feats, four invocations worth, in order to have the privelage of keeping your damage numbers from falling behind basic core characters for a few rounds per day.

If rogues in this game are expected to never make more than one sneak attack per turn and wizards can only cast one blasting spell per fight and can't use metamagic, then maybe this limit would be fair. I expect this is not the case.

To be clear, the Warlock cannot, should not, and is not designed to compete in "dps" with anyone. The Warlock is meant to be a relentless source of attrition, with a few reliable tricks they have to find a way to make use of for every situation. Letting them have a few rounds worth of increased damage is a concession to the fact that sometimes you need more oomph right now, the same way any limited use ability is for any other character.

(And to be further clear, my own Warlock changes are pretty much all in the list of available invocations: there are some higher level blast shapes with better damage output, but as before you can't actually modify your high level effects with meta-SLAs so it's not a compounded problem. Just letting the Warlock keep being a Warlock into higher levels).
---------------------------
Is it possible the DM does not understand the prerequisites of the feats, and thus part of the reason for their ban is because they think you can "pre-load" them at 1st level the same was a wizard can take metamagic feats before they can use them? That would be a reasonable misunderstanding at least. The truth is actually that Complete Arcane's Maximize SLA feat has a lower prerequisite than it should: they gave it the same cl requirement as Empower SLA even though Maximize is a +3 effect, but even so you can't take either until 6th. Quicken can't be taken until 12th level, where it can apply at best to your weakest blast effects. Remember that essences and shapes increase the level of the blast, making it no longer qualify for the feat when you use them- unless the DM rules that you can apply the meta-SLA before the shape/essence, in which case the DM could simply not make that ruling instead, if the DM's particular fear is the Quickening of fully shaped and essence'd blasts.

Is it possible that the DM doesn't want you to be able to stack Maximze and Empower and Quicken all on the same blast? Well I suppose the language in the feats doesn't explicitly prohibit doing that, but you know what's better than banning a reasonable effect just to prevent on specific interaction? Targeting that specific interaction! They could instead stipulate that if you want the two effects to be able to stack, you have to apply the second feat to the modified version you got from the first feat- that is, you spend two feats and have only 3 uses per day of the double modified effect, making this an expensive and inconvenient all-in move. Or if they don't want stacking at all, just add one tiny line that says "SLA cannot be affected by more than one meta-SLA feat at a time." Boom, done.

Is it possible that the DM has specifically decided that the 3/day uses of Maxmize SLA are exactly the amount of extra oomph they want you to have and no more? But by the time you can even have both Maxmize and Empower for a total of 6 boosted blasts per day, at 9th level, a wizard (or sorcerer) has more than 6 spell slots capable of launching fireballs or better, even without counting the 1st and 2nd level spells. The effects a Warlock can quicken simply lack the combo power of a wizard using quicken, and are if anything best used as insurance against your 24 hour buffs being dispelled or for getting a bit of a miss chance ready. Compare these high level Quicken SLA feat options to oh, anything in the Magic Item Compendium and marvel at how bad a feat choice they are.

Heh. As much as I'm willing to fight to get them back, I'd say it's actually funnier to go around it now that I've remembered. 'Cause you can take Maximize SLA multiple times as long as they're for different SLAs. So you just take it once for Eldritch Blast. . . and once for Eldritch Spear, and once for Beshadowed Blast, and once for. . . It would be much nicer to be allowed both Empower and Maximize so you can have a few more boosted shots with basic blasts without having to sink a ton of your invocations known in addition to the feats (which could have been invocations known via Extra Invocation), and people like Quickened blasts just because it makes them feel good really. But if you really want more power they haven't even stopped you.

So the real question here is: hey DM, are you specifically objecting to the idea of Quicken SLA? Because that's the only thing you're actually blocking here. Make a list of the valid invocations at the valid levels, and ask yourself if that's really so bad. Or for the player, if none of that is anything you want, then you can probably drop the subject. I expect if you want more than just Maximize but only for blasts, you're probably taking some essences or shapes, so you can just take Maximize multiple times instead of needing Empower.

If your group knows anything about optimization, then you snag some Hellfire Warlock levels (+Naberius Dip) to add an effective 3d6 (=15d6).
... [snip] (and don't even get me started on Eldritch Glaive/Claws).
All of which are not allowed by this DM, who is not only using a specific book list, but is specifically refusing to let players "pick MM feats." Somehow I don't think they'd allow Hellfire Warlock from the big book of devils even if it was on the list- though it would make more fodder for the case against them if they were using the book and allowing it while refusing the meta-SLAs.

[danielxcutter]

I'd say your DM is being a little tight with that, but it depends on what restrictions he's giving to the other players, and how powerful they are. If the party is Monk/Warlock/Fighter/Scout or something, it might work. If it's Warlock/Wizard/Druid/Cleric on the other hand, I think I'd like a word or two with your DM.

[Troacctid]

"Since spell-like abilities are not actual spells a warlock cannot benefit from the Spell Focus feat. He can however benefit from the Ability Focus feat (see page 303 of the monster manual) as well as from feats that emulate metamagic effects for spell-like abilities such as Quicken Spell-Like ability and Empower Spell-Like Ability (see pages 303 and 304 of the Monster Manual)"

I mean there is no ambiguity here, it list specifics feats you can take.
It's clearly a source restriction, not a rules restriction. OP's warlock would presumably be fine to take Maximize SLA, since it is in an allowed resource, but not Quicken SLA, since it is not in an allowed resource.


So why are we comparing a heavily optimized rogue to an out-of-the-box warlock again? At the very least, you grab the one item from the MiC that adds 2d6 to make the 10d6 a 12d6. If your group knows anything about optimization, then you snag some Hellfire Warlock levels (+Naberius Dip) to add an effective 3d6 (=15d6).

...and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other sources of damage boosting though (and don't even get me started on Eldritch Glaive/Claws).
Literally zero of the things you just listed are available in the allowed sources for the game. Okay, the item is allowed, but greater chasuble of fell power is the warlock equivalent of a +1 flaming frost weapon; I'm not convinced it's even good, let alone optimal.

Also, an optimized warlock's damage output is very similar to an out-of-the-box warlock's damage output, since most of the best damage optimization is incredibly obvious. Take a blast shape that hits more targets, take an eldritch essence that increases damage, and that's about the best you can do without multiclassing or trying weird melee stuff. And congratulations, you made it to the optimization level of...the PHB2 quick build that took Point Blank Shot twice.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/467192850862571522/516500895123505154/unknown.png
Warlocks scale horizontally with optimization much more than vertically. The trick isn't getting them to deal a ton of damage, it's getting the most out of UMD. There are builds with Eldritch Claws or Hellfire Warlock or Unseen Seer that can go tall on damage, but warlock is ultimately just not a striker in this edition.


Is it possible the DM does not understand the prerequisites of the feats, and thus part of the reason for their ban is because they think you can "pre-load" them at 1st level the same was a wizard can take metamagic feats before they can use them? That would be a reasonable misunderstanding at least. The truth is actually that Complete Arcane's Maximize SLA feat has a lower prerequisite than it should: they gave it the same cl requirement as Empower SLA even though Maximize is a +3 effect, but even so you can't take either until 6th. Quicken can't be taken until 12th level, where it can apply at best to your weakest blast effects. Remember that essences and shapes increase the level of the blast, making it no longer qualify for the feat when you use them- unless the DM rules that you can apply the meta-SLA before the shape/essence, in which case the DM could simply not make that ruling instead, if the DM's particular fear is the Quickening of fully shaped and essence'd blasts.

Is it possible that the DM doesn't want you to be able to stack Maximze and Empower and Quicken all on the same blast? Well I suppose the language in the feats doesn't explicitly prohibit doing that, but you know what's better than banning a reasonable effect just to prevent on specific interaction? Targeting that specific interaction! They could instead stipulate that if you want the two effects to be able to stack, you have to apply the second feat to the modified version you got from the first feat- that is, you spend two feats and have only 3 uses per day of the double modified effect, making this an expensive and inconvenient all-in move. Or if they don't want stacking at all, just add one tiny line that says "SLA cannot be affected by more than one meta-SLA feat at a time." Boom, done.

Is it possible that the DM has specifically decided that the 3/day uses of Maxmize SLA are exactly the amount of extra oomph they want you to have and no more? But by the time you can even have both Maxmize and Empower for a total of 6 boosted blasts per day, at 9th level, a wizard (or sorcerer) has more than 6 spell slots capable of launching fireballs or better, even without counting the 1st and 2nd level spells. The effects a Warlock can quicken simply lack the combo power of a wizard using quicken, and are if anything best used as insurance against your 24 hour buffs being dispelled or for getting a bit of a miss chance ready. Compare these high level Quicken SLA feat options to oh, anything in the Magic Item Compendium and marvel at how bad a feat choice they are.
Or, Occam's Razor, it's possible MM isn't an allowed source for character creation. 🤷

[skunk3]

I wouldn't recommend taking any metamagic SLA feats as a Warlock. None of them are really worth taking. The only one approaching decent is Quicken SLA and you can't use it until mid levels anyway, and even then it's just kinda meh.

Personally I think that the single best Warlock feat there is is "Extra Invocation." Warlocks can spam their invocations ALL DAY LONG.

Aside from that, I think Mortalbane is decent enough. Ability Focus: Eldritch Blast is pretty good when you're Eldritch Chaining blasts with rider effects, like Beshadowed Blast, Noxious Blast, Utterdark Blast, etc.

Eldritch Claws is also a fun one if you plan on going melee but I'm sure the OP's DM wouldn't allow it for some dumb reason. I'm also a fan of Arcane Mastery even though some people think it's weak. Whatever.


As far as Point Blank Shot / Precise Shot go... meh. You're not going to be missing with your blasts often enough to even worry about paying a feat tax, especially if you and your allies position wisely.

Crafting feats are great if you have at least 12 levels of Warlock but otherwise don't bother. Extra Invocation rules the roost IMHO.

[danielxcutter]

It's clearly a source restriction, not a rules restriction. OP's warlock would presumably be fine to take Maximize SLA, since it is in an allowed resource, but not Quicken SLA, since it is not in an allowed resource.

Yeah, I'm thinking that if he lets you take Maximize SLA and the game in general isn't bad, sticking around might be the better option. If he suddenly bans that, on the other hand...


Literally zero of the things you just listed are available in the allowed sources for the game. Okay, the item is allowed, but greater chasuble of fell power is the warlock equivalent of a +1 flaming frost weapon; I'm not convinced it's even good, let alone optimal.

Actually, it's slightly better than a +1 flaming frost weapon; vanilla Eldritch Blast isn't energy damage. Also, there are various spells that add energy damage to damage(Burning Sword, Weapon of Energy, Flame Arrow, etc.), but none that add damage to an Eldritch Blast(at least to my knowledge, which is far from exhaustive).

Whether it's a great item on the other hand may be a different question, but at least it's 24/7 instead of having charges, for one. It's a flat +2d6, and one that stacks with all the other ways of adding bonus damage to a blast. You could certainly do a lot worse, at least.


Also, an optimized warlock's damage output is very similar to an out-of-the-box warlock's damage output, since most of the best damage optimization is incredibly obvious. Take a blast shape that hits more targets, take an eldritch essence that increases damage, and that's about the best you can do without multiclassing or trying weird melee stuff. And congratulations, you made it to the optimization level of...the PHB2 quick build that took Point Blank Shot twice.

One, I thought Eldritch Glaive adds a fairly good amount of damage. Two, what? What page of PHB2 is that? Which class?


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/467192850862571522/516500895123505154/unknown.png
Warlocks scale horizontally with optimization much more than vertically. The trick isn't getting them to deal a ton of damage, it's getting the most out of UMD. There are builds with Eldritch Claws or Hellfire Warlock or Unseen Seer that can go tall on damage, but warlock is ultimately just not a striker in this edition.

"Striker" as in "dealing metric craploads of damage each turn"? I have virtually zilch knowledge of not-3.5, so...


Or, Occam's Razor, it's possible MM isn't an allowed source for character creation. 🤷

Probably, yeah.


I wouldn't recommend taking any metamagic SLA feats as a Warlock. None of them are really worth taking. The only one approaching decent is Quicken SLA and you can't use it until mid levels anyway, and even then it's just kinda meh.

Well, there's not much you can do with your swift action, aside from items... Empower isn't terrible either, I think, since you can use it with all of your essences and shapes with a sufficient CL.


Personally I think that the single best Warlock feat there is is "Extra Invocation." Warlocks can spam their invocations ALL DAY LONG.

There is an item that lets you learn more invocations, but only one least invocation each. I'd pay more for a higher-level version, honestly, but there isn't one I think. Depends on what invocation you want/need.


Aside from that, I think Mortalbane is decent enough. Ability Focus: Eldritch Blast is pretty good when you're Eldritch Chaining blasts with rider effects, like Beshadowed Blast, Noxious Blast, Utterdark Blast, etc.

Mortalbane is fine, but from BoVD, which isn't from the OP's allowed sources. Ability Focus is from MM, and since so are the Empower SLA and Quicken SLA feats...


Eldritch Claws is also a fun one if you plan on going melee but I'm sure the OP's DM wouldn't allow it for some dumb reason. I'm also a fan of Arcane Mastery even though some people think it's weak. Whatever.

Not allowed sources, I believe, and I think Eldritch Claws is from Dragon Magazine, which is rather unbalanced at times to say the least.


As far as Point Blank Shot / Precise Shot go... meh. You're not going to be missing with your blasts often enough to even worry about paying a feat tax, especially if you and your allies position wisely.

At early levels even touch attacks aren't guaranteed to hit, to be honest, but still.


Crafting feats are great if you have at least 12 levels of Warlock but otherwise don't bother. Extra Invocation rules the roost IMHO.

Actually, if you have an ally who provides spells for you, it's not a bad idea to take a crafting feat I think.

[Troacctid]

Personally I think that the single best Warlock feat there is is "Extra Invocation." Warlocks can spam their invocations ALL DAY LONG.
I can definitely see the case for it, assuming you're excluding epic feats. (Shadowmaster is overpowered as ****.) I think Obtain Familiar gives it a pretty good run for its money, though. Plus there's Leadership, which is, like, y'know.


Yeah, I'm thinking that if he lets you take Maximize SLA and the game in general isn't bad, sticking around might be the better option. If he suddenly bans that, on the other hand...
Maximize SLA isn't all that great anyway, but it's at least pretty close to Quicken. (It approximately doubles your average damage, which is kind of like firing two blasts.)


Actually, it's slightly better than a +1 flaming frost weapon; vanilla Eldritch Blast isn't energy damage. Also, there are various spells that add energy damage to damage(Burning Sword, Weapon of Energy, Flame Arrow, etc.), but none that add damage to an Eldritch Blast(at least to my knowledge, which is far from exhaustive).

Whether it's a great item on the other hand may be a different question, but at least it's 24/7 instead of having charges, for one. It's a flat +2d6, and one that stacks with all the other ways of adding bonus damage to a blast. You could certainly do a lot worse, at least.
The flaming frost weapon gives +1 to attack and damage, the chasuble doesn't. I think it balances out. The price is exactly the same for a reason.


One, I thought Eldritch Glaive adds a fairly good amount of damage. Two, what? What page of PHB2 is that? Which class?
Appendix: Quick PC and NPC creation.

An eldritch glaive does roughly as much total damage as an eldritch chain that hits all its targets, except the glaive has a lower bonus to hit. The big advantages are a. being able to unload all the damage on a single dork and b. being a least invocation rather than lesser.


There is an item that lets you learn more invocations, but only one least invocation each. I'd pay more for a higher-level version, honestly, but there isn't one I think. Depends on what invocation you want/need.
It's the Codex Advocare from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and it's overpriced garbage TBH. I'd never buy it. For 20,000 gp, you should be getting a lesser invocation. Heck, you can get a lesser invocation—that's the exact same price as a ring of invisibility or a carpet of flying, AKA walk unseen or fell flight, two of the better lesser invocations.

Some other things you could buy with 20,000 gp:

A war wizard cloak that also grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Charisma.
A breed leech symbiont and an intelligent suit of +1 ethereal armor that can cast bless three times per day.
A ring of entropic deflection, Shaundakul's boots, a hat of disguise, five 1st level wands, and a 2nd level scroll.
Four 2nd level eternal wands, three 1st level wands, a masterwork tool, and a jar of liquid sunlight.
A banner of law and a horn of plenty.
A circlet of persuasion, thorn pouch, enveloping pit, tunic of steady spellcasting, artificer's monocle, anklet of translocation, and three amber amulets of vermin.

So, hard pass on the book, IMO.

[Fizban]

Or, Occam's Razor, it's possible MM isn't an allowed source for character creation. 🤷
That's not Occam's Razor, it's literally what the OP said- and also demonstrably untrue, if there are any characters in the party referencing the MM, as many core classes do. However, as in my previous post, I categorically reject this as an acceptable reason, and suggest the OP do so as well. It's time to make a better DM.

So I have attempted to anticipate and present every possible argument with an actual basis, making it as easy as possible for someone to either say "yes, that's what I'm afraid of, that's why." Or hopefully, "huh I guess there's no problem, go ahead then." I've actually provided more analysis of potential problems with the interaction and use of those feats specifically than anyone else here (ie: Quicken isn't double, it's actually "triple" when used alongside Maximize, and there's ambiguity in potential stacking and application to modified blasts), so :smallconfused:

[skunk3]

Being able to capitalize on swift actions is cool and all but straight damage output isn't really the Warlock's strong suit. Quicken SLA (for example) can amp up your damage output for a couple of rounds per day but compared to Extra Invocation? I dunno. Even though you can only pick an invocation of one grade lower than you currently know, that extra utility is preferably to me. YMMV.

The Codex Advocare is completely overpriced at 20k (assuming a DM would even let you buy one) because most Least invocations aren't all that great, and a lot of people tend to pick the best ones as they gain levels anyway. 3 are available before Lesser ones come into play and although I wouldn't mind finding one of books as loot, I wouldn't pay 20k for one when I could get a least rod of eldritch power for.. what? 2k GP?

I've never had an issue hitting enemies with EB's aside from a handful of specific instances, such as incorporeal enemies, enemies with ridiculously high touch AC, etc. Ability scores aren't hugely important for Warlocks (generally speaking) so there's no real harm in spending a decent amount of points on DEX (if doing point buy) or attributing one of your better dice rolls. The only time I see feats like Point Blank shot being useful is if there's a lot of combat happening in cramped indoor spaces / dungeon crawl stuff.

I think that crafting feats are amazing for Warlocks given the fact that they get Imbue Item at level 12, which gives them the ability to craft basically ANYTHING as long as they have enough ranks in UMD.

[Troacctid]

I've never had an issue hitting enemies with EB's aside from a handful of specific instances, such as incorporeal enemies, enemies with ridiculously high touch AC, etc. Ability scores aren't hugely important for Warlocks (generally speaking) so there's no real harm in spending a decent amount of points on DEX (if doing point buy) or attributing one of your better dice rolls. The only time I see feats like Point Blank shot being useful is if there's a lot of combat happening in cramped indoor spaces / dungeon crawl stuff.
The accuracy boost from Precise Shot maths out pretty favorably at low to mid levels. For example, if you're a 7th level warlock with 16 Dex, I believe Precise Shot + Point Blank Shot offers pretty close to the same DPR boost as Mortalbane against typical touch ACs, but with no daily limit.


That's not Occam's Razor, it's literally what the OP said- and also demonstrably untrue, if there are any characters in the party referencing the MM, as many core classes do. However, as in my previous post, I categorically reject this as an acceptable reason, and suggest the OP do so as well. It's time to make a better DM.

So I have attempted to anticipate and present every possible argument with an actual basis, making it as easy as possible for someone to either say "yes, that's what I'm afraid of, that's why." Or hopefully, "huh I guess there's no problem, go ahead then." I've actually provided more analysis of potential problems with the interaction and use of those feats specifically than anyone else here (ie: Quicken isn't double, it's actually "triple" when used alongside Maximize, and there's ambiguity in potential stacking and application to modified blasts), so :smallconfused:
Source limitations are a commonplace practice in this edition thanks to splatbook bloat, so I'm surprised that you seem so baffled by the concept. And even if the DM were disallowing the Monster Manual for character creation because of power level, there are other feats like Craft Construct, Flyby Attack, and Multiattack that you didn't mention in your arguments; wouldn't you have to convince the DM that all of them are acceptable too?

[Pleh]

I played a blastlock a little while ago. Mortalbane and Maximize as I was building up to hellfire.

It was totally fine. I mostly knew I was going to chip away a small, but significant amount of damage just about every round. Any time I wanted to kill it with fire, turn on one of my daily boosts. I did instantly fry one NPC with that (watching them interact with an ally from the rooftop in a crowded city as the NPC started turning into one of the monsters we had been fighting on the way to the city).

[Ashiel]

So why are we comparing a heavily optimized rogue to an out-of-the-box warlock again? At the very least, you grab the one item from the MiC that adds 2d6 to make the 10d6 a 12d6. If your group knows anything about optimization, then you snag some Hellfire Warlock levels (+Naberius Dip) to add an effective 3d6 (=15d6).

...and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other sources of damage boosting though (and don't even get me started on Eldritch Glaive/Claws).

Haste and any concealment effect (blur, displacement, ring of invisibility, minor cloak of displacement, etc, etc, etc) do not heavy optimization make. In fact, I made no mention of anything that was outside of just "Am rogue will stab". You however are now specifying specific prestige classes which also drastically change the way that your blasts work (and are a trap unless you are also hybriding with Binder w/ a specific aspect so you can not kill yourself), and suggesting to go dumpster diving for class specific magic items, just to maybe sort of keep up with the rogue who's already kind of a garbage class to begin with.

Let's think about that for a moment... :smallamused:

[Troacctid]

Haste and any concealment effect (blur, displacement, ring of invisibility, minor cloak of displacement, etc, etc, etc) do not heavy optimization make. In fact, I made no mention of anything that was outside of just "Am rogue will stab". You however are now specifying specific prestige classes which also drastically change the way that your blasts work (and are a trap unless you are also hybriding with Binder w/ a specific aspect so you can not kill yourself), and suggesting to go dumpster diving for class specific magic items, just to maybe sort of keep up with the rogue who's already kind of a garbage class to begin with.

Let's think about that for a moment... :smallamused:
Hellfire warlock is perfectly fine on its own. Anyone can buy a wand of lesser restoration.

[zergling.exe]

Hellfire warlock is perfectly fine on its own. Anyone warlock can buy make a wand of lesser restoration.

Fixed it for you.

[Troacctid]

Fixed it for you.
Not all warlocks take 12 levels in the base class, and the ones that do don't always take Craft Wand.

[zergling.exe]

Not all warlocks take 12 levels in the base class, and the ones that do don't always take Craft Wand.

If you're going for Hellfire Warlock you'll probably look for some way to fix the ability damage, and making the wands yourself would be fairly cheap. Especially because you can make scrolls of Embrace and Shun the Dark Chaos.

[Pleh]

If you're going for Hellfire Warlock you'll probably look for some way to fix the ability damage, and making the wands yourself would be fairly cheap. Especially because you can make scrolls of Embrace and Shun the Dark Chaos.

I dunno. I just got Strongheart Vest approved by my DM.

[Fizban]

Source limitations are a commonplace practice in this edition thanks to splatbook bloat, so I'm surprised that you seem so baffled by the concept.
I'm not baffled, I'm just angry. Or offended, or called to action, or something. Just because book lists are common doesn't mean they are in any way a good way of doing things. I'm trying to be delicate so as to avoid directly saying they're wrong, they can be quite convenient when you know there's very little you'd allow from the book anyway, but this case is so small and specific and directly contradicted by one of the very books on the list that even the slightest investigation reveals how arbitrary and contradictory it is. Are they wrong to run their game in whatever way they choose? No, as per standard RPG reality, they can play however they want. But I've got a player here asking for advice because the game is not playing how they want, and that's an issue.

I can say that the DMG does not support the idea of choosing your materials based solely on what book they're in- it's pretty dang clear that DM should be paying attention to things individually and not just dumping in piles of stuff without looking at it. Using book lists where everything in the book is allowed, and everything not in the book is disallowed, for no other reason than what book it's in, does in fact go against the way the 3.5 DMG itself suggests DMing in 3.5. [DMG p6, 11-14, 174-176, DMG2 p80-81, multiple mentions of taking care in what rules are changed or used and accepting player input]. Of course this hinges on the understanding that adding new material from a book is the same as adding your own material or making changes to existing material, and having read the parts of the DMG about game balance and modifying the game.* Kinda annoys me how the DMG leads with "we don't expect you to read this cover to cover," when there's kindof a lot of important stuff between those covers.

So the only thing I can recommend is trying to build a better DM. There are few better examples you could use to show why flat book lists don't make sense and contradict the game's own given DM practices. Hopefully the OP's DM will be willing to listen to reason and evidence.


And even if the DM were disallowing the Monster Manual for character creation because of power level, there are other feats like Craft Construct, Flyby Attack, and Multiattack that you didn't mention in your arguments; wouldn't you have to convince the DM that all of them are acceptable too?
Not sure I follow- I'm arguing for specific feats, why would I have to argue for the other feats? I'm not saying the DM should allow the PCs every feat in the MM, I'm saying they shouldn't be disallowing the meta-SLAs Warlocks specifically mention without a better reason, when there's a player specifically asking for them, and the DM seems to have changed their book-list ruling to book-list but also players can't use this part of this book in response to that request.

Unlike the meta-SLAs, none of the other monster feats (except Multiattack in the Animal Companion description, and Flyby Attack on some possible companions or mounts probably) are called out as expected by a base class. They actually can fall under the reasonable (standard, default) clause of "no extra stuff until I've okay'd it," and we don't know of anyone asking for them. But as central core feats then yes, you probably should have a good reason for disallowing them, and if someone was asking then I'd expect an actual reason, as the DMGs clearly say the DM should be giving me. Even if that reason is as simple as "I don't want PCs Flyby Attacking or Crafting Constructs or Multiattacking, because. . . " The same as I gave a list of reasons why you might want to not have Warlocks using Empower or Quicken SLA. When you deal with me you don't get to hide behind a book list for allowances or bans, you deal with the mechanics in question.


*There is exactly one mention of books, regarding what books the players are allowed to reference at the table. It's on a list with such issues as: what to do if someone is absent, what to do if dice fall on the floor, and deciding how much off-topic joking you want. The one mention of "what books people can use" is referring to literally what books they can pull out at the table (and they're always allowed the PHB), not the context of what content is being used. That's it. The only mention of "what books" is the one that's meant for players not looking up the stats of monsters they're fighting or wasting time searching through 10 different books for the perfect whatever. I mention it only for completeness' sake, because I honestly never noticed it until I went to get page citations that go against book-list DMing. I challenge any such DM to look me in the eye and say that line is in fact their justification.

[skunk3]

The accuracy boost from Precise Shot maths out pretty favorably at low to mid levels. For example, if you're a 7th level warlock with 16 Dex, I believe Precise Shot + Point Blank Shot offers pretty close to the same DPR boost as Mortalbane against typical touch ACs, but with no daily limit.




You also have to be within 30 feet of your target to get the damage boost from Point Blank shot. I am not sure what your DEX score has to do with damage output other than just being able to successfully make a ranged touch attack, and Precise Shot just makes it a bit easier to hit an opponent engaged in melee. Ranged touch attacks are usually quite easy to make even with a -4 penalty as long as you keep your DEX up. At 20th level assuming you do not have any items to boost your EB dice that's basically +9 damage IF you're within 30 feet... and unless you are playing some sort of melee lock build there's no reason to EVER be within 30 feet unless absolutely necessary. Whoopdeedoo. I don't think it's worth wasting a feat on either of them, but that's just me. Even something quite basic like Improved Initiative is better IMO.

[Pleh]

I am not sure what your DEX score has to do with damage output other than just being able to successfully make a ranged touch attack, and Precise Shot just makes it a bit easier to hit an opponent engaged in melee.

Snip

At 20th level assuming you do not have any items to boost your EB dice that's basically +9 damage IF you're within 30 feet...

Pretty sure the increased frequency to hit is exactly the point.

And it's a bit unfair to compare the effect at 20th level when the advantage was stated to be up to 7th level. 20th level just wasn't the claim being made.

I believe the point was that you take PBS and PS early and ride the benefits til 7th level, by which point you've had opportunity to build up to bigger and more worthwhile investments.

[Zaq]

You also have to be within 30 feet of your target to get the damage boost from Point Blank shot. I am not sure what your DEX score has to do with damage output other than just being able to successfully make a ranged touch attack, and Precise Shot just makes it a bit easier to hit an opponent engaged in melee. Ranged touch attacks are usually quite easy to make even with a -4 penalty as long as you keep your DEX up. At 20th level assuming you do not have any items to boost your EB dice that's basically +9 damage IF you're within 30 feet... and unless you are playing some sort of melee lock build there's no reason to EVER be within 30 feet unless absolutely necessary. Whoopdeedoo. I don't think it's worth wasting a feat on either of them, but that's just me. Even something quite basic like Improved Initiative is better IMO.

DPR = Expected damage on hit times chance to hit. (Roughly.)

If you aren’t in “only miss on a nat 1” territory (which you won’t be in the early game), increasing either chance to hit or damage on hit increases your DPR. Precise Shot is one of the bigger boosts to chance to hit you’ll get early on. Touch attacks are easier than non-touch attacks, but you can easily still miss when you’ve only got a handful of HD (and therefore BAB) and you’re rocking a -4 from the asinine “shooting into melee” rules.

I mean, hell, even at level 6 that -4 cancels out your entire BAB. Given that most Warlocks only get one EB per turn, it’s worth it to take relatively low-hanging fruit that noticeably reduces your chance of wasting your entire turn.

[Troacctid]

At 20th level assuming you do not have any items to boost your EB dice that's basically +9 damage IF you're within 30 feet... and unless you are playing some sort of melee lock build there's no reason to EVER be within 30 feet unless absolutely necessary. Whoopdeedoo. I don't think it's worth wasting a feat on either of them, but that's just me. Even something quite basic like Improved Initiative is better IMO.
+9 damage is more than if you had Mortalbane on every attack. Mortalbane adds an average of +7 damage at best.

And I'd say getting an extra +1 is a pretty decent reason to be within 30 feet, especially since you only have a range of 60 anyway.


I believe the point was that you take PBS and PS early and ride the benefits til 7th level, by which point you've had opportunity to build up to bigger and more worthwhile investments.
I don't know if 7th level is when it falls off, I just picked a random midgame level. I could make a spreadsheet, I guess.

[Goaty14]

(snip)

Still though, you're pointing to a bunch of stuff that the rogue doesn't normally get (IMO, to justify the difference between the warlock *not* sticking his neck out, right next to the tank) and then comparing your "edited" version of a rogue to a completely "unedited" warlock. I'm confused how you're justifying yourself pointing at items that provide concealment/invisibility/etc, and somehow I'm violating some sort of a taboo pointing out items that increase EB damage. Is a new player getting the idea that more damage = good too much of an assumption to make?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Question: Are there any critters (online, say) that have invocations as a warlock or dragonfire adept? There's plenty of spellcasting out there, and several monsters (such as psionic illithids) manifest psionic powers as psions or some other flavor of manifesting class. There's the incarnum dragon, initiator valkyries, and more. But I have yet to see something that has warlock abilities (or dragonfire adept ones, either). Has anyone else seen such a monster in a 1st or 2nd party book? Or 3rd party, but I'd rather have the first two.

I'm sure there's some way for a warlock to use that to his advantage, even if only via scrolls of polymorph, Supernatural Transformation, and Assume Supernatural Ability, or something.

[skunk3]

DPR = Expected damage on hit times chance to hit. (Roughly.)

If you aren’t in “only miss on a nat 1” territory (which you won’t be in the early game), increasing either chance to hit or damage on hit increases your DPR. Precise Shot is one of the bigger boosts to chance to hit you’ll get early on. Touch attacks are easier than non-touch attacks, but you can easily still miss when you’ve only got a handful of HD (and therefore BAB) and you’re rocking a -4 from the asinine “shooting into melee” rules.

I mean, hell, even at level 6 that -4 cancels out your entire BAB. Given that most Warlocks only get one EB per turn, it’s worth it to take relatively low-hanging fruit that noticeably reduces your chance of wasting your entire turn.

This is purely anecdotal, but it has been my experience that hitting enemies at low levels with EB isn't THAT difficult, and even if you miss from time to time and "waste a turn" it's easy enough to stay alive and continue pew-pew'ing them to death, especially in a group. SOME dm's don't allow feat retraining... you pick what you can qualify for and you're stuck with it forever. (I personally feel that is fair because feat retraining, to me, is essentially metagaming.)

[Pleh]

This is purely anecdotal, but it has been my experience that hitting enemies at low levels with EB isn't THAT difficult, and even if you miss from time to time and "waste a turn" it's easy enough to stay alive and continue pew-pew'ing them to death, especially in a group. SOME dm's don't allow feat retraining... you pick what you can qualify for and you're stuck with it forever. (I personally feel that is fair because feat retraining, to me, is essentially metagaming.)

It's absolutely metagaming. IIRC, the devs outright said in the printing of those that the intention behind them was to help players get out of trap options without scrapping the character. What probably wasn't their intention was to encourage "planned obselecence" where you set out from the very start with the intention of retraining later.

"Hitting enemies with EB at low level isn't THAT difficult." You're not wrong, but it's rather irrelevant because the claim was that, for low levels, the small bonus to hit frequency is statistically on par with a straight damage increase.

No amount of it being easy to do at low levels changes the fact that feats that increase To Hit slso increase DPR about as effectively as feats that increase damage dice.

I mean, I understand your point that, "all things being equal, why take the option that eventually falls behind the curve as opposed to the one that doesn't?"

It's a fine point, but my experience is that PBS is underrated between practice and statistics and Mortalbane is a bit overrated. I mean, people hear, "PBS is only +1 to hit and damage and only in 30ft and they determine it's useless." But oftentimes you can use allies or terrain to keep enemies from targeting you directly, even within 30ft. And more frequently than many people think about, you won't be given more than 30ft in a room to be away from the threat.

It just tends to come up more often than people think, mostly because they intend to employ strategies to stay outside of 30ft, which is fine and fair, but PBS will always be there for you, meaning those emergency moments you EB will be all that much more reliable, plus it is a prereq to a TON of character options.

Meanwhile, it seems Mortalbane gets the benefit of the doubt and people usually just hear, "it's a straight +2d6 to EB." Yeah, but it's not quite that, is it? You get 5 daily uses (every time you take the feat), which means you spend most of your day not using your feat (almost like not having it). Even then, it only is even effective on "mortals," which are defined as living non-outsiders. That's nearly as limited in usefulness as Sneak Attack.

Ultimately, we have to be careful making generalizations based on how we expect to use these abilities. We don't always have control of the encounter.

[Troacctid]

Really I think the better conclusion is that Mortalbane is overrated. It doesn't even work with eldritch glaive the way you want it to. Although it does combine nicely with chilling tentacles and wall of perilous flame, and it's kind of a combo with Maximize, so, eh, sure.

Precise Shot is probably better on a warlock than you might think, but it's still boring, and it comes with a really annoying feat tax as a prerequisite, so I rarely end up choosing it over more interesting options.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Precise Shot is probably better on a warlock than you might think, but it's still boring, and it comes with a really annoying feat tax as a prerequisite, so I rarely end up choosing it over more interesting options.

Actual mechanical benefits aside, Precise Shot is not a bad feat to take as a matter of etiquette (for any ranged build). Sure, your fellow players might be mature about friendly fire, and understand that the risk of shooting into melee is worth the reward. That doesn't mean that the party Barbarian you just shot mid-rage won't make the perfectly reasonable in-character decision to pummel you a bit for it. In some ways it's worse than throwing AoE blasts into melee, since at least then you also hit your enemies, and if your allies have Evasion/energy resistance/more hit points, that sort of friendly fire can be a sound tactical decision.

[Troacctid]

Actual mechanical benefits aside, Precise Shot is not a bad feat to take as a matter of etiquette (for any ranged build). Sure, your fellow players might be mature about friendly fire, and understand that the risk of shooting into melee is worth the reward. That doesn't mean that the party Barbarian you just shot mid-rage won't make the perfectly reasonable in-character decision to pummel you a bit for it. In some ways it's worse than throwing AoE blasts into melee, since at least then you also hit your enemies, and if your allies have Evasion/energy resistance/more hit points, that sort of friendly fire can be a sound tactical decision.
Firing into melee doesn't carry a risk of hitting your allies. You're probably thinking of firing into a grapple. And Precise Shot doesn't help against that—you'd need Improved Precise Shot.

Having Precise Shot can still be a courtesy to allies in another way, though: teamwork benefits. One person having Precise Shot qualifies the whole team for the Ranged Precision teamwork benefit from Heroes of Battle, which cuts the penalty for firing into melee in half for all team members and similarly halves the cover bonus granted to the team's enemies if a team member is in the way; and the Indirect Fire teamwork benefit from Player's Handbook II, which allows any team member to act as a spotter for the rest of the team, halving the benefit they gain from cover and allowing allies to roll twice for miss chance and take the better result. Both are quite nice to have, and should be a real consideration if nobody else in the party already has Precise Shot.

[Efrate]

Pretty sure your ally counts as cover when firing into melee, and if you miss by 1 to 4 without precise you hit the cover, which is your ally.

[Troacctid]

Pretty sure your ally counts as cover when firing into melee, and if you miss by 1 to 4 without precise you hit the cover, which is your ally.
Nope, there's no chance of striking the cover in this edition. It just provides an AC bonus. Incidentally, said AC bonus is entirely separate from the penalty for firing into melee, and Precise Shot doesn't help against it at all except via the aforementioned teamwork benefit that requires it. That's Improved Improved Precise Shot territory again. Improved Precise Shot: protecting you against rules the DM probably would have forgotten about anyway.™

[Telonius]

Pretty sure your ally counts as cover when firing into melee, and if you miss by 1 to 4 without precise you hit the cover, which is your ally.

This is a variant rule (found on p. 24 of the DMG).