Warlock hexblade/pact blade

[Whit]

Hello. In adventure league i want to make the above which is PHB+1 Xanthars, For invocations. Please suggest options. Here is what I’m looking at at lvl 5 warlock
Half Elf +1Dex,Con. Lvl 4 +2 CHA
Point buy STR 10,INT 10, WIS 10, DEX 14, CON 16, CHA 18 40 hit points AC 18 Breast plate + Dex max +2). Shield +2
Invocations (3) 1. Improved Pact Weapon gives +1 to pact weapons. Can also be any melee or range weapon and spell focus.
This covers melee and range combat.
2. Eldritch smite for auto knock prone difficult enemy boss.
3. Thirsting blade 2 attacks with pact weapon.
Since I can now have range and melee pact weapon i did not go for agonizing blast invocation, but perhaps later. Still need to get devil sight and darkness spell
Cantrips (3) eldritch blast, minor illusion, prestidigitation
Spells level 1. pre owned shield, wrathful smite added HEX
Level 2. Pre owned blur, branding smite. Added mirror image shadow blade. Higher level this will be my upcast attack choice fir bosses.
Level 3 pre owned blink, elemental weapon. Added counter spell, dispel magic, fly.

Pact weapon is +7 hit +4 damage 2 attacks with +1d6 hex if used. Weapon can be any melee or range

[greenstone]

That's very close to a character I'm playing right now. Combat takes a bit of a while to get going (if surprised then I'm not really effective until the 4th round of combat) but when it gets going, it gets good! :-)


1. Improved Pact Weapon gives +1 to pact weapons. Can also be any melee or range weapon and spell focus.
Not any ranged weapon. You are limited to shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow (not dart, blowgun, sling or net).


2. Eldritch smite for auto knock prone difficult enemy boss.
This is really situational. It is something you might use once or twice in a campaign. It also uses a spell slot, something that is in short supply. Knocking an enemy prone is also not that great for the rest of your party, who are now attacking at disadvantage. It's not even that great for you - prone is a bit pointless without grappling, as the foe can just get up at the start of their next turn. I suggest you pick an invocation that will work in the other two pillars of the game (maybe beguiling influence, mask of many faces, or beast speech).


3. Thirsting blade 2 attacks with pact weapon.
Yep, that's pretty much a required choice for hexblades.


Since I can now have range and melee pact weapon i did not go for agonizing blast invocation, but perhaps later.
Excellent choice. A conjured pact longbow has better range and damage.


Still need to get devil sight and darkness spell
Arrggh, you were doing so well up till now. Please, do everyone at the table a favour and don't take these. I've played a character with this combination and all it does is annoy everyone (including the GM, which is bad). Sure, I could attack a creature at advantage, but now every other person was either attacking at disadvantage or sitting there twiddling their thumbs getting angry at me. Just say no.



Cantrips (3) eldritch blast, minor illusion, prestidigitation
Spells level 1. pre owned shield, wrathful smite added HEX
Level 2. Pre owned blur, branding smite. Added mirror image shadow blade. Higher level this will be my upcast attack choice fir bosses.
Level 3 pre owned blink, elemental weapon. Added counter spell, dispel magic, fly.

Can I suggest lightning lure. As a hexblade, you want to be bringing foes closer to you.
None of the pact of the blade invocations work with shadow blade. Its a trap spell for warlocks.

You have too many spells known there. At level 1 you only know 2 spells, 3 at level 2, 4 at level 3. The expanded spell lists don't allow you to know more spells, they just expand the list you can pick from.

In case you are interested, at level 3 my warlock knows shield (a poor choice, I'm swapping it out at level 4), hex (a very poor choice in the game we are in because it uses extended rests), protection from evil/good (which was vital in one encounter protecting an NPC from possession by a ghost), and misty step.

For your level 4 ASI, consider Resilient (CON). As a melee character, concentration saves might be more important than +1 attack and damage from more CHA.

Finally, enjoy the character. The hexblade warlock is, in my opinion, the best arcane melee class in the game. I'm having a ball playing one, and we're only at level 3.

[Valmark]

Count me in for people who are playing melee hexblades!

What the other player said finds me in agreement! Though I'd mention Hellish Rebuke as a spell- with my character I've chosen reaction/bonus action spells and that one is still useful. Another nice choice is thunderstep- but if you take misty step having both isn't going to be useful.

I have to say, if you to make use of smites you should consider 2 levels as a paladin- you get the smites, basic healing spells and a fighting style. And you don't need to change your stats!

Multiclassing into paladin makes it harder, since you require 13 strenght in addition to 13 charisma (multiclassing into warlock only requires 13 charisma). Plus if you are going to have 13 strenght you'd be better off starting as a paladin to also have heavy armor. You only need to swap strenght with dexterity to use heavy armors.

After those two level you can just go straight warlock. If you like me don't like the melee warlock past level 12, you can in future get 3 more levels as a paladin to get extra attack which frees the invocation (also more spells that you can use more freely, saving your warlock's 5th level slots for smites or better spells)

Note: this is only theory, mine is a straight warlock that will eventually multiclass as a sorcerer, but for now it's the party tank (my ac is higher 'cause I've got Medium Armor Master, since I don't use concentration and I wanted to increase my ac before my damage. Also this makes me quite competent with stealth)

Anyway, if you do remove eldritch smite I'd suggest Beguiling Influence- you are good with charisma after all. Another good pick is the one for at-will detect magic, though I never played in an AL so I don't know how worthy these invocations are.

[greenstone]

>And you don't need to change your stats!
Multiclassing prerequisites apply to all of your classes. A multiclass warlock paladin needs STR 13+ and CHA 13+.

From the PHB.


To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score prerequisites for both your current class and your new one, as shown in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table.



I won an argument with my GM -15/08/2017- (20:32 GMT +1)
:cool: I salute you my friend.

[Valmark]

Ooops, that's what I get for not checking twice- well, the rest still applies :p

[Keravath]

I am playing a melee hexblade in adventurers league. He is currently level 10 hexblade/1 shadow sorcerer.

Some comments.

1) Improved pact weapon and thirsting blade are essential for a melee blade lock.

2) Eldritch smite on the other hand is (in my opinion) a complete trap and utterly wasted.
- Until level 11 a warlock only has 2 spell slots. If you want to use them for eldritch smite then every other spell option you have : hex, shadow of moil, darkness, mirror image is useless since you always have to decide between saving the spell slots for a smite or casting something useful. 90%+ of the the time, you are better off casting something useful. Casting darkness+devils sight (or later shadow of moil) gives you advantage on your attacks for the entire combat - this is FAR more useful than one smite. Anyway, my character doesn't have it and won't even consider it until after level 11 when he gets three spell slots.

3) A melee warlock needs to be able to maintain concentration on whatever combat enhancing spell they choose to use. In melee you will get hit. If you can't maintain concentration, then it becomes a waste of a spell slot. This means that you need to plan on resilient con (or possibly warcaster) as part of your build.

4) Agonizing blast is your baseline for damage. It is a great cantrip and invocation. Unless you are only doing melee for style points, you need to choose options that will result in your melee attacks doing more damage than agonizing blast. This can be accomplished by using a greatsword or a polearm combined with the Great weapon master and/or Polearm master feats.

In my case, I went with variant human, took polearm master/great weapon master and resilient con as feats. I rely on darkness+devils sight or shadow of moil to gain advantage to hit (and disadvantage to be hit) in most combats. This has worked out pretty well so far. I'd like a higher charisma but this will be boosted with the next ASIs.

Finally,

"Arrggh, you were doing so well up till now. Please, do everyone at the table a favour and don't take these. I've played a character with this combination and all it does is annoy everyone (including the GM, which is bad). Sure, I could attack a creature at advantage, but now every other person was either attacking at disadvantage or sitting there twiddling their thumbs getting angry at me. Just say no."

Table rules regarding darkness vary a lot so check with your DM.

RAW, darkness does not do any of the things cited in this description. If a character can not see a target then they have disadvantage on that attack. However, if the target can not see the character then the character has advantage. Advantage and disadvantage cancel and, RAW, darkness does nothing to weapon attacks (though it does cancel any other sources of advantage or disadvantage making everything a straight roll). Similarly, the only spells that can't be cast are those that require the caster to see their target. As a result, no one should have to attack with disadvantage or twiddle their thumbs if you are using darkness. Since AL is played using RAW this is how it should be played where you are playing (I've been playing AL for three years now and this is how it has been played at every AL table I've played at). Many DMs may use house rules like those described in the quote above for it but AL doesn't permit house rules.

I've used darkness+devils sight quite a few times on a couple of characters and if I was using ranged attacks then I could be off to the side or if I was making melee attacks with a polearm, I could move in to my 10' reach and then back out a bit if anyone wanted to make an attack that required seeing the target. Generally, it worked very well. Also, having darkness near the melee let my allies leave combat without op attacks by stepping into the darkness before leaving the creatures reach. In addition, the darkness was extremely useful for blocking gaze attacks from a basilisk, medusa or vampire. Darkness can be an all round, extremely useful spell.

[Theaitetos]

This is really situational. It is something you might use once or twice in a campaign. It also uses a spell slot, something that is in short supply. Knocking an enemy prone is also not that great for the rest of your party, who are now attacking at disadvantage. It's not even that great for you - prone is a bit pointless without grappling, as the foe can just get up at the start of their next turn. I suggest you pick an invocation that will work in the other two pillars of the game (maybe beguiling influence, mask of many faces, or beast speech).

The knocking prone effect of Eldritch Smite doesn't require a spellslot. It's an incredibly powerful ability that can be used to take any flying enemy down. Unless another ranged ally is trying to attack the prone enemy, there is no drawback to a free prone effect on a hit; the advantage to nearby attackers also means an allied rogue can sneak attack happily.



For your level 4 ASI, consider Resilient (CON). As a melee character, concentration saves might be more important than +1 attack and damage from more CHA.


If one isn't too worried about WIS saves, it's cheaper to start with a Sorcerer at level 1 to get the CON/CHA save proficiencies (Sorlock).

[Pex]

Keep in mind just because you are a hexblade blade pact that doesn't mean you are forbidden from having Agonizing Blast Eldritch Blast. You may not be focusing on range, but you will be needing to attack at range from time to time, so you might as well enjoy this as every other warlock. Your Hexblade Curse applies. When you get multiple blasts if you use them all against your Cursed target each blast will crit on 19 and each blast will do extra damage equal to your proficiency. It is worth considering despite Improve Blade Pact. With a bow you can't use a shield and doing 1d8 damage. Eldritch Blast allows you the shield and doing 1d10 damage.

If you're not in the mood for that and want to stick with the bow with Improved Blade Pact, that's fine. You're not doing it wrong, not The Suck, etc. The point is more I find people tend to think if you're going Blade Pact that means you aren't using Eldritch Blast. I believe it important to remind people the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be Blade Pact and still enjoy all the glory that's thrown upon Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

[Valmark]

The knocking prone effect of Eldritch Smite doesn't require a spellslot. It's an incredibly powerful ability that can be used to take any flying enemy down. Unless another ranged ally is trying to attack the prone enemy, there is no drawback to a free prone effect on a hit; the advantage to nearby attackers also means an allied rogue can sneak attack happily.

The prone effect does require a spell slot though. Or, to be more precise, eldritch smite requires a spell slot to activate, including the prone effect.


Keep in mind just because you are a hexblade blade pact that doesn't mean you are forbidden from having Agonizing Blast Eldritch Blast. You may not be focusing on range, but you will be needing to attack at range from time to time, so you might as well enjoy this as every other warlock. Your Hexblade Curse applies. When you get multiple blasts if you use them all against your Cursed target each blast will crit on 19 and each blast will do extra damage equal to your proficiency. It is worth considering despite Improve Blade Pact. With a bow you can't use a shield and doing 1d8 damage. Eldritch Blast allows you the shield and doing 1d10 damage.

If you're not in the mood for that and want to stick with the bow with Improved Blade Pact, that's fine. You're not doing it wrong, not The Suck, etc. The point is more I find people tend to think if you're going Blade Pact that means you aren't using Eldritch Blast. I believe it important to remind people the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be Blade Pact and still enjoy all the glory that's thrown upon Agonizing Eldritch Blast.

You reminded me- changing weapon requires an action (talking about the pact weapon) thus you (the OP) want to keep the blast for ranged. Or any other thing that doesn't make you lose an action.

Also if you find a +1 or more magical weapon, improved pact blade won't do anything to it, so if you bond the weapon you're saying goodbye to the bow.

Also also, take an hint, always keep it summoned if possible. Even summoning it requires your action, in contrast with unsheating a weapon that doesn't require anything usually.

Also also also, summoning a ranged pact weapon doesn't summon ammunitions, if I'm not mistaken. I know, it's a minor thing, but I don't know how AL's DMs rule things like these.

[Man_Over_Game]

Arrggh, you were doing so well up till now. Please, do everyone at the table a favour and don't take these. I've played a character with this combination and all it does is annoy everyone (including the GM, which is bad). Sure, I could attack a creature at advantage, but now every other person was either attacking at disadvantage or sitting there twiddling their thumbs getting angry at me. Just say no.




Table rules regarding darkness vary a lot so check with your DM.

RAW, darkness does not do any of the things cited in this description. If a character can not see a target then they have disadvantage on that attack. However, if the target can not see the character then the character has advantage. Advantage and disadvantage cancel and, RAW, darkness does nothing to weapon attacks (though it does cancel any other sources of advantage or disadvantage making everything a straight roll). Similarly, the only spells that can't be cast are those that require the caster to see their target. As a result, no one should have to attack with disadvantage or twiddle their thumbs if you are using darkness. Since AL is played using RAW this is how it should be played where you are playing (I've been playing AL for three years now and this is how it has been played at every AL table I've played at). Many DMs may use house rules like those described in the quote above for it but AL doesn't permit house rules.


Well said!

One interesting thing of note is that the Alert feat helps allies in Darkness, as it means that, in a Darkness situation where both parties attack normally, the enemy now attacks the player with Disadvantage while the player attacks normally.

Additionally, Advantage with your Hexblade's Curse means you have a dramatically increased crit chance, from 10% to 19% (or 1/5 attacks).

Unless the enemy has Blindsense/Truesight, or your party has multiple curse-based spellcasters, Darkness generally has more benefit to the players than the badguys.

[Whit]

Thanks for your suggestions and point outs.

1. Changed eldritch smite; looking at tomb of levistus.
2. Fixed the spell issues. 1. Hex, 2. mirror image 3. Shadowblade,4. Counterspell, 5. Dispel magic 6 fly

3. Good question on arrows or bolts. Technically you need ammo but most dm’s allow the flavor of creating the arrow as the only thing that would be amiss is calculating ammo. Unless you had found magic ammunition.

[Theaitetos]

The prone effect does require a spell slot though. Or, to be more precise, eldritch smite requires a spell slot to activate, including the prone effect.

No, only the additional damage requires a spell-slot, the prone effect does not. Re-read the text carefully:


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

Clearly these are two separate effects, not one and the same.

[Valmark]

I'd tell you that it means that they are both triggered upon the expenditure of the spell slot, but with english not being my first language I don't want to get into a discussion about grammar. I do know that anyone I heard irl or on the internet rules otherwise (well, almost anyone I guess) so it's probably wise to not count on it.

That said, since the op doesn't plan on using it, it's not really an issue.

[Keravath]

This is a bit misleading:


Attacking blind means you have Disadvantage. Attacking a creature that can't see your attack means you have Advantage. Assuming you and your target can't see one another, you all attack normally.

The Alert feat helps allies in Darkness, as it means that, in a Darkness situation where both parties attack normally, the enemy now attacks the player with Disadvantage while the player attacks normally.

Darkness prevents everyone from being seen, which causes many spells to be unable to be cast.

Darkness can be cast on an object with which you throw, meaning that the Darkness can originate within their team instead of your own (mostly disables their spellcasters and possibly their ranged attackers if targeting is a big deal).



Additionally, Advantage with your Hexblade's Curse means you have a dramatically increased crit chance, from 10% to 19% (or 1/5 attacks).

Unless the enemy has Blindsense/Truesight, or your party has multiple curse-based spellcasters, Darkness generally has more benefit to the players than the badguys.

It seems that Keravath's DM might have been using some modified rules. Not something I'm against, but you may want to talk to your own DM to see how he rules it.

Odd :) .... I thought I said exactly what you did. The quotation you cited in your post is the same one I referenced and I was trying to say the same things you mentioned above. i.e. Using darkness in a group is not usually an issue if the table plays using RAW or close to it.

[Ruston]

Clearly these are two separate effects, not one and the same.

I don't think that's clear at all. At most it's slightly ambiguous, with the scales heavily weighted in favor of needing to expend a spell slot to use any part of what the spell offers. Are there any examples outside this one where simply knowing a spell gives you access to part of the spell's function without needing to expend a slot?

[Man_Over_Game]

Odd :) .... I thought I said exactly what you did. The quotation you cited in your post is the same one I referenced and I was trying to say the same things you mentioned above. i.e. Using darkness in a group is not usually an issue if the table plays using RAW or close to it.

You're right! I had meant to write "Greenstone" instead of you. My bad.

[Theaitetos]

I don't think that's clear at all. At most it's slightly ambiguous, with the scales heavily weighted in favor of needing to expend a spell slot to use any part of what the spell offers. Are there any examples outside this one where simply knowing a spell gives you access to part of the spell's function without needing to expend a slot?

It's not a spell, it's an Eldritch Invocation, that improves the warlock's pact weapon and grants the ability to smite with spell slots. And it's not ambiguous either, it's standard English: When you enter the room, you can push the green button to play music, plus change the song, and you can push the red button to turn on the light if it is off.
Do you need to push the green button to turn on the light? No.
The prone effect is limited to once per turn and creatures of huge or smaller size.

I'm mentioning these things because I wasn't quite happy about the advice, that was given to the op; Eldritch Smite is a powerful invocation, due to the prone effect and the ability to apply a powerful no-save bonus damage, that even doubles when used on a critical hit.

[greenstone]

Now I've read this thread, I can see both interpretations of the English in the invocation. Arrgghh!

I still think I'm going to come down on the side of "must spend a spell slot to get bonus damage and/or prone" because an automatic knock prone on hit is waaaaaaaay to powerful. Nothing gets that, as far as I know.

I also still feel that knocking things prone is not worth it. Your foe gets up at the start of their next turn, so depending on initiative few-to-none of your party members might be attacking with advantage. Those that are only get advantage if they are within 5 feet, so knocking the foe prone disadvantages all the ranged combatants and all the reach weapon combatants. Unless the warlock has multiple attacks (from the thirsting blade invocation or from a feat like polearm master), even they don't get any advantage from knocking the foe prone.

I'm going to double-down on my snark about darkness and devil's sight . It's just lame. :smallsmile::smallyuk:
As posters here have said, though, expect table variation. My character had a horrible time with darkness; other players here haven't. I guess it also depends on setting. We were in the Underdark. Every time my darkness went off it dispelled all the light cantrips, screwing over the humans. The small caverns meant that the party couldn't get out of the darkness area. The paladin's magic weapon was scared of the darkness and wouldn't (or couldn't) work inside the area of darkness. Our GM was also mean about darkness (INT checks to not wander randomly) which hopefully your DM won't (seriously - turning the lights out doesn't strop me walking to the other side of the room without getting lost!).

[Valmark]

To be fair, there's also plenty of things that fly and are immune to being knocked prone, plus most of the time if you have knocked an enemy down you are next to them and the rogue will get sneak attack anyway. And you are wasting an action if you didn't have a ranged weapon summoned/want to switch to melee fighting.

I like the fact that if you cast darkness then an archer would get better at shooting a prone enemy, since they are getting advantage from not being seen thus it all gets nullified. I think they do, I can't check right now.

[Theaitetos]

an automatic knock prone on hit is waaaaaaaay to powerful.

I also still feel that knocking things prone is not worth it. Your foe gets up at the start of their next turn, so depending on initiative few-to-none of your party members might be attacking with advantage.

What is it now? If knocking prone isn't worth it, then how can it be waaaaaaay too powerful at the same time. :smallconfused:

Additionally, the auto prone effect also works with opportunity attacks (or as readied Action), as it is "once per turn", not "once on your turn". This makes moving away from a Bladelock very difficult, as getting back up eats half of all movement, so you can easily pin down enemies (literally!).

There is no save and it works on anything up to huge creatures. All of these powers come with a single Eldritch Invocation, and it doesn't cost you a single spell-slot; this is why nobody should outright dismiss Eldritch Smite as weak. Remember that you can also swap an invocation on level-up, so feel free to try Eldritch Smite for a level and then decide whether you like it or not.

[Keravath]

What is it now? If knocking prone isn't worth it, then how can it be waaaaaaay too powerful at the same time. :smallconfused:

Additionally, the auto prone effect also works with opportunity attacks (or as readied Action), as it is "once per turn", not "once on your turn". This makes moving away from a Bladelock very difficult, as getting back up eats half of all movement, so you can easily pin down enemies (literally!).

There is no save and it works on anything up to huge creatures. All of these powers come with a single Eldritch Invocation, and it doesn't cost you a single spell-slot; this is why nobody should outright dismiss Eldritch Smite as weak. Remember that you can also swap an invocation on level-up, so feel free to try Eldritch Smite for a level and then decide whether you like it or not.

I'd have to disagree with your comment about spell slot usage. Every use of Eldritch Smite requires the expenditure of a spell slot the way I read it.

"ELDRITCH SMITE
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade feature
Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."

This is all one sentence. You can expend a spell slot to
- do 1d8 force damage + 1d8 per level of the spell slot + knock the target prone.

Eldritch Smite does nothing without expending a spell slot.

You are trying to parse the sentence as:

"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon,[ you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and] you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."

while it makes more sense in English to parse it as:

"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, [you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.]"

[Theaitetos]

This is all one sentence.

That's not how grammar works. My example is making it easy to understand:

When you enter the room, you can push the green button to play music, plus change the song, and you can push the red button to turn on the light if it is off.
Now, do you need to push the green button to turn on the light?

[Man_Over_Game]

That's not how grammar works. My example is making it easy to understand:

When you enter the room, you can push the green button to play music, plus change the song, and you can push the red button to turn on the light if it is off.
Now, do you need to push the green button to turn on the light?

The problem is with your example is that the trigger for turning on the light is mentioned with it, where Eldritch Smite's knocking prone is not.

Generally, with how commas work, you should be able to remove a middle section divided by commas and the sentence will still be coherent.

Such as:

"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target [] and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."

Rather than your Green Light/Red Light example:

"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target [] and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller whether you spent the spell slot or not."

Also of note is its ambiguity, and 5e was designed around simplicity and common sense. This is important, because it could have very well avoided any ambiguity by making the first mention of an effect to knock the target prone.

For example:

"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller. You can spend a spell slot when doing so to add an additional 1d8 force damage [] to the target."

Note how this version is almost exactly the same length as the original, yet it's very clear on the two effects.


Instead, the first thing mentioned in the original is the cost. Not only is the effect of knocking a target prone not isolated from the rest of the statement, but knocking a target prone comes chronologically after the mention of a cost.

It makes the most sense to assume that you need to spend a spell slot for ES to do anything.

[Theaitetos]

The problem is with your example is that the trigger for turning on the light is mentioned with it, where Eldritch Smite's knocking prone is not.

Generally, with how commas work, you should be able to remove a middle section divided by commas and the sentence will still be coherent.

That's wrong on both counts.

First, the trigger for Eldritch Smite is "when you hit a creature with your pact weapon", not spending the spell-slot. The spell-slot is the cost for dealing the damage, not the trigger for Eldritch Smite. It's hard to miss this, as it's the very beginning of the sentence:


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

Your understanding of commas is wrong, as any Oxford Comma enthusiast can explain in excruciating detail to you; but the more obvious mistake is you simply omitting the second "you can". I marked it green in the very first post, and yet you read the sentence as if it weren't there. These are two equal clauses conjoined with the conjunction "and", not parts of one another.


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

You can switch the order of the two clauses around in the original (but not your false reading) without adding/removing a single letter or comma:


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller, and you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot.


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller, and you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot.

As you can see, the original allows the order of the clauses to be switched around without error, which only works with separate clauses. Your misunderstood reading of the sentence does not allow the order to be switched.

That's why my example with the buttons was on the mark, it showed the crucial part that the second "you can" plays by turning it into its own clause instead of being merely the last part of a previous clause. Words matter, don't pretend they aren't there.

[Valmark]

That's wrong on both counts.

First, the trigger for Eldritch Smite is "when you hit a creature with your pact weapon", not spending the spell-slot. The spell-slot is the cost for dealing the damage, not the trigger for Eldritch Smite. It's hard to miss this, as it's the very beginning of the sentence:



Your understanding of commas is wrong, as any Oxford Comma enthusiast can explain in excruciating detail to you; but the more obvious mistake is you simply omitting the second "you can". I marked it green in the very first post, and yet you read the sentence as if it weren't there. These are two equal clauses conjoined with the conjunction "and", not parts of one another.





You can switch the order of the two clauses around in the original (but not your false reading) without adding/removing a single letter or comma:





As you can see, the original allows the order of the clauses to be switched around without error, which only works with separate clauses. Your misunderstood reading of the sentence does not allow the order to be switched.

That's why my example with the buttons was on the mark, it showed the crucial part that the second "you can" plays by turning it into its own clause instead of being merely the last part of a previous clause. Words matter, don't pretend they aren't there.

While I'm not sure I'm getting either of your arguments (well, I'm getting Man_Over_Game argument, but that could be because I believe it to be so and because logically the other way doesn't make sense) I do know that this is wrong. MOG has been saying up until now that by consuming the spell slot you can do one thing and you can do the other, and they ARE exchangeable (I'm not sure that "exchangeable" is written like this) without altering the meaning.

While I think I'm vaguely getting your point Theaitetos (it IS a bit tricky) you should make sure to understand what the other part is saying before accusing them of pretending that the words aren't there (I know it was probably a figure of speech, but I don't know it and it felt a bit aggressive. I guess it's the problem with text communication).


That's not how grammar works. My example is making it easy to understand:

When you enter the room, you can push the green button to play music, plus change the song, and you can push the red button to turn on the light if it is off.
Now, do you need to push the green button to turn on the light?

Also, re-reading it now I'm seeing that your example is wrong, but not for the reason previously explained.
You compared the green light to spending the spell slot, right? This means that following your example you'd have to spend a different spell slot to turn on the light if it is off.
You would have to erase the red button part to make it coherent, and that would make it so that the green button does everything, meaning what MOG and others are saying.
Though I guess that you are going to tell me that then you can turn on the light just because when you enter the room.

That said, isn't this going off-topic? I feel like it's turning into a discussion about Eldritch Smite instead of a discussion about a warlock hexblade/pact blade.

[Whit]

Jeremy Crawford mentioned that you can only use warlock spell to cast ES and nit any other spell aster slot like sorcerer orPaladin.
Based on that state that it can be referred as needing to use a spell slot to cast it.
How I read it is once you hit a creature with yiur pact weapon you can use a spell slot to do an extra 1d8 plus an extra 1d8 per level slot plus knock prone. So it’s a triple effect when you use the spell slot for ES

[Whit]

like the info
Invocations
1. AB range so I don’t waste an action changing pact weapon Keep the pact weapon ready
2. Improved pact weapon
3. Thirsting blade
Then
4. Devils sight fir darkness and shadow Moil
5. Tomb of levistus
6. Life drinker at lvl 12

Spells as of now lvl 5 1. fly , 2, hex , 3 mirror image 4. Counter spell 5. Dispell magic. 6. Invisibility If a Wizard in the group remove dispel magic and or counter spell and choose either mystystep hypnotic pattern or blur

As for feats stats. Lvl 4 resilient lvl 8 polearm mastery lvl 12 elven mastery

[Valmark]

like the info
Invocations
1. AB range so I don’t waste an action changing pact weapon Keep the pact weapon ready
2. Improved pact weapon
3. Thirsting blade
Then
4. Devils sight fir darkness and shadow Moil
5. Tomb of levistus
6. Life drinker at lvl 12

Spells as of now lvl 5 1. fly , 2, hex , 3 mirror image 4. Counter spell 5. Dispell magic. 6. Invisibility If a Wizard in the group remove dispel magic and or counter spell and choose either mystystep hypnotic pattern or blur

As for feats stats. Lvl 4 resilient lvl 8 polearm mastery lvl 12 elven mastery

The only thing I'd like to add is that you took devil's sight for darkness but you don't know darkness. Or shadow of moil, but I think that it's too high in level?

EDIT: Nevermind I'm an idiot :p yeah, it's all good. I would personally change one or two things, but that's because of my personal play style.

[FinnS]

Hahaha! There is absolutely no way the knock down effect of Eldritch Smite is not tied to spending a spell slot. NONE!
It would have been listed completely separate like every other spell or ability in the books do when there are separate effects involved.

For the knock down to be separate it would have had to be listed as follows...

Once per turn you can elect to knock a target prone that you hit with your pact weapon. You can also elect to spend a spell slot to deal 1d8 force damage + an additional 1d8 force damage per level of the slot used.

It does NOT read that way what so ever!
You either spend the slot to activate all of it or you get none of it, period!

There is no debate here heh


As far as the whole Darkness thing goes...definitely take it with Devil's Sight, ESPECIALLY if you choose to go ranged. Cast it somewhere away from everyone, go stand in it and pelt anyone you like with advantage all day long while everyone has disadvantage to hit you with any attack requiring an attack roll, can't even target you with any spells that use the phrase "a target you can see", and there's a lot of them. They can try and target you with AOE spells but who says you have to stay in the darkness? You could move up to 80' behind the darkness and still be able to see through the entire 40' across globe and they still can't see you unless they can look around or over the globe of darkness.

[Theaitetos]

While I'm not sure I'm getting either of your arguments

OK, last try. I now exchange the "and" with "or" in the last part of the sentence, and then tell me if you see a difference between those two sentences:


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, or knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, or you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

How would you interpret ability 1 & ability 2? Would you say there's a difference between them or not? Would you need to expend a spell-slot to knock the target prone with ability 1? With ability 2?

[FinnS]

OK, last try. I now exchange the "and" with "or" in the last part of the sentence, and then tell me if you see a difference between those two sentences:

How would you interpret ability 1 & ability 2? Would you say there's a difference between them or not? Would you need to expend a spell-slot to knock the target prone with ability 1? With ability 2?

All your changing of "and" to "or" does is change getting the extra damage and knockdown as part of spending the spell slot to making you choose between the extra damage or knocking the target prone for spending the spell slot.


"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact
weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an
extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8
per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target
prone if it is Huge or smaller."

Straight up...."You can expend a warlock slot to" Everything that follows this is what is only possible when you spend that slot.

Again, if the knocking prone thing was not part of spending the spell slot, it would have been stated first on its own or separated in some way. It is not. It is part of the description of what happens after you spend a spell slot period.

Let me put it very bluntly for you...if the ability to knock the target prone was intended to be able to be used without spending any resources, it 100% would have stated that separately.

[Valmark]

OK, last try. I now exchange the "and" with "or" in the last part of the sentence, and then tell me if you see a difference between those two sentences:





How would you interpret ability 1 & ability 2? Would you say there's a difference between them or not? Would you need to expend a spell-slot to knock the target prone with ability 1? With ability 2?

Well, of course they are different. In one case you are saying that you do one or the other, in the other you can do both. That change has no bearing on the point of the discussion, right? It's like asking if the meaning changes removing "can".

I said that I wasn't sure if I was following your arguments because you (as in, both users) were repeating the same exact sentence offering two different meanings which gets confusing after a while. At least, to me it feels confusing. But that's kind of the point, if it wasn't possible to misunderstand it there would be no discussion.

[Theaitetos]

Well, of course they are different. In one case you are saying that you do one or the other, in the other you can do both. That change has no bearing on the point of the discussion, right? It's like asking if the meaning changes removing "can".

Did you even read the two abilities? You can't do both in any of these. Here, read them again:


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, or knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, or you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

The first ability allows you to expend a spell-slot to EITHER do extra damage OR knock the target prone.
The second ability allows you to EITHER expend a spell-slot for extra damage OR knock the target prone.

This difference between the sentences exists regardless of whether you use "and" or "or" as the conjunction.



Your confusion stems from the inability to differentiate a list from two conjoined clauses.
"I like apples and bananas." is 1 clause, that lists 2 things.
"I like apples and I like bananas." are 2 separate clauses, no lists; it's equivalent to "I like apples. I like bananas." The word "and" is merely connecting these 2 separate clauses.

"You can deal extra damage, and knock someone prone." is 1 clause, that lists 2 things.
"You can deal extra damage, and you can knock someone prone." are 2 clauses, no lists; it's equivalent to "You can deal extra damage. You can knock someone prone." The word "and" is merely connecting these 2 separate clauses.

If it were truly a list of things that you get for expending a warlock spell-slot, then you could change the order of the listed items:
"I like apples, oranges, and bananas."
= "I like oranges, apples, and bananas."
= "I like apples, bananas, and oranges."
= "I like oranges, bananas, and apples."
= "I like bananas, apples, and oranges."
= "I like bananas, oranges, and apples."

Try it here:

"You can expend a spell slot to deal extra damage, plus more damage, and you can knock the target prone."
"You can expend a spell slot to you can knock the target prone, and deal extra damage, plus more damage."

Doesn't work. That's because it's not a list, but 2 separate clauses; that's why they can stand as their own sentences:
"You can expend a spell slot to deal extra damage, plus more damage. You can knock the target prone."
Listed items cannot stand as own sentences:
"I like bananas. Oranges. Apples."

One doesn't have to be a grammar nazi to know that.

[FinnS]

Did you even read the two abilities? You can't do both in any of these. Here, read them again:





The first ability allows you to expend a spell-slot to EITHER do extra damage OR knock the target prone.
The second ability allows you to EITHER expend a spell-slot for extra damage OR knock the target prone.

This difference between the sentences exists regardless of whether you use "and" or "or" as the conjunction.



Your confusion stems from the inability to differentiate a list from two conjoined clauses.
"I like apples and bananas." is 1 clause, that lists 2 things.
"I like apples and I like bananas." are 2 separate clauses, no lists; it's equivalent to "I like apples. I like bananas." The word "and" is merely connecting these 2 separate clauses.

"You can deal extra damage, and knock someone prone." is 1 clause, that lists 2 things.
"You can deal extra damage, and you can knock someone prone." are 2 clauses, no lists; it's equivalent to "You can deal extra damage. You can knock someone prone." The word "and" is merely connecting these 2 separate clauses.

If it were truly a list of things that you get for expending a warlock spell-slot, then you could change the order of the listed items:
"I like apples, oranges, and bananas."
= "I like oranges, apples, and bananas."
= "I like apples, bananas, and oranges."
= "I like oranges, bananas, and apples."
= "I like bananas, apples, and oranges."
= "I like bananas, oranges, and apples."

Try it here:

"You can expend a spell slot to deal extra damage, plus more damage, and you can knock the target prone."
"You can expend a spell slot to you can knock the target prone, and deal extra damage, plus more damage."

Doesn't work. That's because it's not a list, but 2 separate clauses; that's why they can stand as their own sentences:
"You can expend a spell slot to deal extra damage, plus more damage. You can knock the target prone."
Listed items cannot stand as own sentences:
"I like bananas. Oranges. Apples."

One doesn't have to be a grammar nazi to know that.

Again dude, you're wrong. Everything that follows in the description comes following the criteria that you spent a spell slot to activate it.

If there were two different abilities, one free and one that uses resources, it would have clearly separated them.
There is always a clear and distinct separation between abilities that cost resources and ones that do not, always!

For it to work the way you're suggesting it would have had to state the knocking prone as standard and then add that additionally you can use a spell slot to do the damage.

It most definitely does not do that. The using of a spell slot is the precursor for everything the ability does.

Is very clear and no amount of grammar shenanigans is going to change that.

[Valmark]

Did you even read the two abilities? You can't do both in any of these. Here, read them again:





The first ability allows you to expend a spell-slot to EITHER do extra damage OR knock the target prone.
The second ability allows you to EITHER expend a spell-slot for extra damage OR knock the target prone.

This difference between the sentences exists regardless of whether you use "and" or "or" as the conjunction.



Your confusion stems from the inability to differentiate a list from two conjoined clauses.
"I like apples and bananas." is 1 clause, that lists 2 things.
"I like apples and I like bananas." are 2 separate clauses, no lists; it's equivalent to "I like apples. I like bananas." The word "and" is merely connecting these 2 separate clauses.

"You can deal extra damage, and knock someone prone." is 1 clause, that lists 2 things.
"You can deal extra damage, and you can knock someone prone." are 2 clauses, no lists; it's equivalent to "You can deal extra damage. You can knock someone prone." The word "and" is merely connecting these 2 separate clauses.

If it were truly a list of things that you get for expending a warlock spell-slot, then you could change the order of the listed items:
"I like apples, oranges, and bananas."
= "I like oranges, apples, and bananas."
= "I like apples, bananas, and oranges."
= "I like oranges, bananas, and apples."
= "I like bananas, apples, and oranges."
= "I like bananas, oranges, and apples."

Try it here:

"You can expend a spell slot to deal extra damage, plus more damage, and you can knock the target prone."
"You can expend a spell slot to you can knock the target prone, and deal extra damage, plus more damage."

Doesn't work. That's because it's not a list, but 2 separate clauses; that's why they can stand as their own sentences:
"You can expend a spell slot to deal extra damage, plus more damage. You can knock the target prone."
Listed items cannot stand as own sentences:
"I like bananas. Oranges. Apples."

One doesn't have to be a grammar nazi to know that.

I've... Somehow managed to misread the first ability. Probably a lapsus 'cause I was thinking the original invocation, but still, my error.

Anyway, those two then are equivalent.


I'm not sure if the line will come out. Anyway, I'm answering to that part now.

While I get what you are saying, isn't the second "you can" there only to give you the choice if doing it or not? Like, they could have removed it and then they could have written "and knock" simply, or "and you knock" and the change would have been that it's not anymore a possibility. If you think about it, without touching the previous lines, you couldn't have a different sentence.

"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact
weapon, you can spend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller." here you always knock it prone (if Huge or smaller). You add "you can" and suddenly it's a possibility. No?
(Anyone should comment on this if it's wrong, it is a group discussion at this point after all)

On another note, I'm gonna try making an example, but mind you, I don't actually know if this works or not as I think.

"Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact
weapon, by expending a warlock spell slot you can deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller."

I've inverted the warlock spell slot with the you can. Isn't the only difference that now the damage is optional instead of being the sure outcome when you expend the spell slot? And yet the prone thing is tied to the spell slot.
Of course this could be wrong- I can't actually make an example in my language and translate it 'cause the grammar rules are different, so I have to make it directly in english and possibly gloss over something by mistake.

[Theaitetos]

Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target, plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

It is not possible to read the sentence with this structure:


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon,

you can expend a warlock spell slot to

deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target,

plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and
you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

because the "you can knock" cannot be a part of the list of things that "you can expand a warlock spell slot to" get. The "you can" is absolutely in the way - you need an infinitive after "to", not a new subject + conjugated verb. Only by removing the "you can" is it possible to fit that last part into the list:


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon,

you can expend a warlock spell slot to

deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target,

plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and
knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller.

Try it yourself:

Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon,

you can expend a warlock spell slot to

deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target,

plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and
heal your friends,
acquire nice flowers,
bake a bread,
read a book,
knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller,
conjure a celestial,
buy a movie ticket,
...



This would work. But that's not what is written. How can you not see that the "you can" absolutely does not fit into the list of things that "you can expend a warlock spell slot to" get?


Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon,

you can expend a warlock spell slot to

deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target,

plus another 1d8 per level of the spell slot, and
you can heal your friends,
acquire nice flowers,
you can bake a bread,
read a book,
you can knock the target prone if it is Huge or smaller,
conjure a celestial,
you can buy a movie ticket,
...

[Taboomantis]

Spells level 1. pre owned shield, wrathful smite...
Level 2. Pre owned blur, branding smite...
Level 3 pre owned blink, elemental weapon.....

These spells are added to your list to choose from. They are not automatically known. Only cleric, paladin and now artificer get spells known on top of what they choose.

[FinnS]

It is not possible to read the sentence with this structure:



because the "you can knock" cannot be a part of the list of things that "you can expand a warlock spell slot to" get. The "you can" is absolutely in the way - you need an infinitive after "to", not a new subject + conjugated verb. Only by removing the "you can" is it possible to fit that last part into the list:



Try it yourself:



This would work. But that's not what is written. How can you not see that the "you can" absolutely does not fit into the list of things that "you can expend a warlock spell slot to" get?

Notice how he keeps ignoring my posts about about how there is always a separation of free abilities from ones that cost resources?
Yea....we're done here folks and he knows it.

[JNAProductions]

Please take the overly long discussion of Eldritch Smite to another thread. The OP doesn't need that much arguing over it, when ultimately, they need to ask their DM. However the DM rules, that's how their game works.

[Skylivedk]

I have played the class, single classed.

Starting stats:
Half-drow
10 str
14 dex
16 con
10 wis
8 int
17 cha

Level 4: gwm

Level 8: elven accuracy (cha)

Level 12: tested PAM, but have spoken to my DM about being allowed to change to Res:Con. With your level 10 and 14 abilities, plus 24 hour hex, it's a lot less potent. Also, playing pre-written campaigns usually favour 2h swords over polearms.

Level 16: +2 cha (would probably do this as 12, if I hadn't acquired the Ioun Stone of Leadership)

He was the sole survivor of Tomb of Annihilation. Some details on how he fared below.

The class is so strong that he felt almost on par for the many 1-day, no SR encounters during hex crawling. In the dungeons where long rests were difficult and short rests easy, he became ridiculously strong

I suggest not taking Eldritch Smite (won't get into the discussion; my DM ruled damage and knock down both for the spell slot. That was it), but after getting 3 spell slots, I've used it frequently to help me churn out +150 DMG burst rounds.

Synaptic state and soul cage combo very very well. You don't need line of sight for synaptic state. Soul cage allows you to scout rooms/areas that a victim knew of. A lot of enemies have bled their brains out their ears while I was in safety behind very thick walls this way.

For the first time in my career, I'm giving some serious thought to an end game level build. I'm really considering going battlemaster for the last 3 levels. It seems straight up cruel. I'd love to hear the forums take on that.

[Theaitetos]

Notice how he keeps ignoring my posts about about how there is always a separation of free abilities from ones that cost resources?
Yea....we're done here folks and he knows it.

I notice how you make claims without any evidence to back them up. And then you complain about being ignored. :smallsigh:

If you want to make a point with something backing your point up, here's an example:


I believe the knock prone effect once per round is meant to be free of a spell-slot cost. Xanathar's Guide to Everything introduced a lot of new Eldritch Invocations that gave increased battlefield maneuverability and movement control to warlocks, and none of those invocations cost anything; in addition to the classical Repelling Blast [on hit: move target 10ft away] the Eldritch Blast warlocks got Grasp of Hadar [once turn: move target 10ft closer], Lance of Lethargy [once turn: reduce movement speed by 10ft], and Relentless Hex [bonus action: teleport to your cursed target].
The ability to knock a target prone [once per turn on a hit with the bladelock's pact-weapon] perfectly fits into this theme of movement control that was granted to warlocks, especially since it's the only invocation specifically tailored to melee bladelocks instead of ranged blastlocks. The additional damage effect is severely limited already since it explicitly requires warlock spell-slots and warlocks have just 2 of those spell-slots for most of the game.

Freely adapted from: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?541525-How-useful-is-Eldritch-Smite-really/page14

[FinnS]

I notice how you make claims without any evidence to back them up. And then you complain about being ignored. :smallsigh:

If you want to make a point with something backing your point up, here's an example:



Freely adapted from: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?541525-How-useful-is-Eldritch-Smite-really/page14

Look dude, the ability to inflict a status condition (prone) without expending a resource always comes with some kind of save/ability check to avoid. Even when it does cost resources, it still usually comes with a roll to avoid and if it doesn't, there's a clear indication of the exact resources involved.
Grammar munchkinism on RAW aside, there is no way RAI put a free, resourceless knockdown in.
Even if the RAW isn't clear to everyone (and by not everyone I mean the 1 in 200 that it isn't), the RAI is more than clear that you are not getting a frankly completely overpowered free knockdown that is completely unique and doesn't fit into 5e's overall play and philosophy.
That an ability that can only be used with a specific resource (a warlock spell slot) to do extra damage and provide a free knockdown means it can only be done probably twice and maybe at very high level up to four times per fight sounds extremely more plausible and fits perfectly into 5e gameplay.

So enough already, if you can find a DM that would allow it then good luck to you.
We are both done here the only difference is I know it and you don't.