Warlock Eldritch Claws

[Mordante]

Last Saturday I got together with my D&D group and we decided to go for lvl1 characters again. The previous campaign was never finished. However after such a long (covid-19)break we wanted to start fresh. So my initial idea, if the DM allows it is to go for a Eldritch claw Warlock. I'm not trying to min/max too much but I could use some help.

My initial idea is to go for a Strongheart Halfling, but maybe Human would be better since a Warlock get very few skill points. Since we are an an evil party of sort. I was thinking of going for:

Willing Deformity and Deformity (Clawed Hands). These would go nice with the Eldritch Claw feat, an extra D6 damage and I think it would go nicely with an evil-ish campaign.

We will be using a 32 points buy system and I will be working towards the Hellfire Warlock.

So any tips for race, points buy and feat would be welcome. I don't think I will be going for a high Charisma though.

I want to create the concept and a character sheet and sent it to the DM for approval.

[Darg]

There are 2 interpretations of eldritch claws: it is not an eldritch blast or it works similarly to a blast shape like hideous blow. They both have their benefits and cons. The second allows you to use your hellfire blast with the claws along with essences while the first allows you to bypass spell resistance but is reduced by damage reduction your UAS doesn't bypass and allows you to double up on unarmed strike damage with the beast strike feat.

Either way, enlightened fist is an awesome PRC as it progresses your monk abilities and it progresses your warlock. With intuitive attack, you can focus on wis, con, and charisma with charisma being a possible dump. If you don't want to take a monk level, then swap wis with dex.

[Troacctid]

Unfortunately, you can't boost Eldritch Claws with hellfire, so it is not a combo with hellfire warlock.

My favorite prestige class for a clawlock is Sentinel of Bharrai. It lets you polymorph into a bear at will, which gives you a huge Strength score to slash people up with, and it also gives you a free grapple attempt when you hit with your claws, because why not, right? Obviously not a great fit for an evil campaign, though—if you can't be an exalted character, then your next best bet for a mighty morphin' clawlock would be either the shapeshifter prestige class from Oriental Adventures or the Mulhorandi divine minion (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050209a) template.

Check out the handbook in my signature for various warlock-related recommendations.

[Gruftzwerg]

Eldritch Claws can't use essences by RAW and any interpretation that tries to imply that uses a sentences that is officially not part of the rule text and is defined as fluff text (short description in simple words, not rules).
__________________

@OP

Since you have access to Dragon feats, have a look at Beast Strike. It lets you add your "claw damage" on top of your "unarmed strike damage". This allows you to do iterative attacks, since you now use your unarmed strikes to attack. Further your damage with Beast Strike (& Eldritch Claws) is: unarmed strike + unarmed strike + eldritch blast damage
This doubles your unarmed damage and is a huge deal for clawlocks.
Enlightened Fist is (IIRC) the sole PRC that progresses unarmed strike and warlock at the same time and thus highly recommended.
Have a look at my signature Clawlock build (Claw of Malar) for optimization suggestions. Beware of the optimization lvl and adjust it according to your tables power lvl. The build combines the high dmg of an ubercharger with mobility and several layers of deception and perception to have a predator themed build.

As Troacctid said, Eldritch Claws doesn't work with Hellfire (and all other essences). If you want to have a hellfire melee build, you have to go with an Eldritch Glaive build. I also have an optimized Glaivelock build in my signature (see: Hellfire Escalation) if you want to compare it to a clawlock build. Maybe it's more what you are looking/aiming for?

[Darg]

Eldritch Claws can't use essences by RAW

The reverse is also RAW.


is defined as fluff text (short description in simple words, not rules).

You have yet to prove this statement. Nowhere is "fluff text" defined as not being rules text. It's a "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language." It isn't always short, nor simple. Many descriptions contain instructions for the player not found elsewhere without extrapolation. It can also contain text of gameplay consequence beyond rules such as making you a recognizable figure.



To OP, it's important to talk to your DM about what you and your DM want out of the feat. If you want to have Hellfire Blast work with the claws, the feat implies it is possible. If you want it to be able to use essences, you can.

[Troacctid]

The reverse is also RAW.



You have yet to prove this statement. Nowhere is "fluff text" defined as not being rules text. It's a "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language." It isn't always short, nor simple. Many descriptions contain instructions for the player not found elsewhere without extrapolation. It can also contain text of gameplay consequence beyond rules such as making you a recognizable figure.



To OP, it's important to talk to your DM about what you and your DM want out of the feat. If you want to have Hellfire Blast work with the claws, the feat implies it is possible. If you want it to be able to use essences, you can.
The feat explicitly says you cannot use your normal eldritch blast while the claws are active. That's not especially ambiguous.

[Darg]

The feat explicitly says you cannot use your normal eldritch blast while the claws are active. That's not especially ambiguous.

The feat also says you are using your eldritch blast to form the claws which isn't ambiguous either.

[Gruftzwerg]

The reverse is also RAW.



You have yet to prove this statement. Nowhere is "fluff text" defined as not being rules text. It's a "Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language." It isn't always short, nor simple. Many descriptions contain instructions for the player not found elsewhere without extrapolation. It can also contain text of gameplay consequence beyond rules such as making you a recognizable figure.



To OP, it's important to talk to your DM about what you and your DM want out of the feat. If you want to have Hellfire Blast work with the claws, the feat implies it is possible. If you want it to be able to use essences, you can.

plain language != rule text

Do you have any rule base that "plain language" is still "rule text"? (as far as I know, there is none)

Or can you prove that the terms "plain language" and "rule text" are commonly exchangeable statements in the English language? (I highly doubt that..)

Unless you can prove that, you have to assume that "plain language" just means "plain language" (and not what you would like to imply into it).

If you lawyer explains a law for you, you can't use his explanation and demand it to be taken as law. Especially when he uses "simple language" for his explanation. It's like talking to a small child and use simple language. You use simplified statements that aren't 100% correct. Cause for that, it would need a more defined vocabulary (or rule/law knowledge in our chase). Same in d&d. A simplified overview of an ability in "plain language" is not part of either the "Benefit:" nor the "Special:" sections and thus bear no right to have any impact on the game (as per the definition of "Feat Descriptions" in the PHB). It's up to you to prove that statements outside of the "Benefit: / Special:" sections have any impact on rules.

[Mordante]

Thanks for the info.

I'm going to try and convince my DM that hellfire and claws should work. :) If not I think I will go for a Glaive lock. I don't like the idea of doing monk/lock. It doesn't fit my character or back ground idea. Not even sure if we will ever reach level 10 since that is high level and most people I play with are not fan of high level characters since it slows down the game. If he allows it I think I will go for:

lvl 1Willing Deformaty (+2 to intimidate)
lvl 1 Deform claws (+1d6 poison claws)
lvl 3 Eldritch Claw Feat
lvl 6 improved natural attack claw
lvl 9 weapon focus unarmed
lvl 10 PRC hellfire warlock
lvl 12 Hellsworn (1D6 unholy damage)
lvl 15 Rapidstrike

If my DM will allow it. I won't be optimized much I guess but it should be fun.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't like the idea of doing monk/lock. It doesn't fit my character or back ground idea.

If you dislike the monk theme/background, the unarmed swordsage variant can also replace those monk lvls to get the desired monk abilities.

[Mordante]

If you dislike the monk theme/background, the unarmed swordsage variant can also replace those monk lvls to get the desired monk abilities.

I like that idea. Will look at the unarmed swordsage. To me character story/background is more important to optimization.

[Darg]

plain language != rule text

Do you have any rule base that "plain language" is still "rule text"? (as far as I know, there is none)

The fact it is written and contains rules and instructions for the player is more than enough evidence considering there is nothing to the contrary. Ignoring that is a disservice and obviously prevents some feats from working as they should. Who would think rays are an option for weapon focus? If it isn't rules text, rays are not an option for weapon focus. There is no valid rebuttal to that.

[Red Fel]

The feat also says you are using your eldritch blast to form the claws which isn't ambiguous either.

Not exactly. Here's some exact text.


As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands. While your eldritch claws exist you may make up to two claw attacks as natural weapons. You are automatically proficient with your eldritch claws. On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage. Once you form your eldritch claws they remain until just before the beginning of your next turn. You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist. A monk may not use eldritch claws as part of her flurry of blows.

So let's break that down line-by-line.

"As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands." This sentence is descriptive. It does not explain any mechanics, it merely describes the concept and appearance. When a piece of text does not give a mechanical explanation, but merely a description, it is commonly referred to as fluff.

"While your eldritch claws exist you may make up to two claw attacks as natural weapons." This sentence outlines a specific mechanical benefit. To wit: You may make two claw attacks. That is a mechanic this text adds. When text outlines a specific mechanic, it is referred to as crunch.

"You are automatically proficient with your eldritch claws." Proficiency is a game mechanic. Crunch.

"On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage." Damage mechanics. Crunch.

"Once you form your eldritch claws they remain until just before the beginning of your next turn." Turns and ability durations are mechanics. Mm, crunchy.

"You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist. A monk may not use eldritch claws as part of her flurry of blows." Mechanical exclusions are still mechanics. Crunchy-crunch-crunch.

So, let's review. The sentence that says that eldritch claws are "formed from" your eldritch blast - not "using," but "formed from," in the same way that if you "formed" a plowshare from a sword you'd have a hard time parrying with it - is fluff. It describes no actual mechanics. By contrast, the sentence that says that you cannot use your eldritch blast ability - which, as an ability, includes blast shapes and the like - is clearly descriptive of mechanics.

Saying that the fluff of an ability trumps the mechanics, while it may involve a common-sense interpretation, doesn't work. For example, not all [Fire] spells actually cause fires to break out, even though logically they should, since they all involve fire. The ones that do cause conflagration are specifically indicated in their spell descriptions. Saying, "Well, it's made of fire, so it causes fire to break out," simply isn't RAW.

Same thing here. The mechanical, crunchy part of this feat says that the claws preclude eldritch blast. The other part, the part on which you rely, is not a mechanical description. It is fluff. An engaging description of the feat's effect, but not an actual mechanic.

[Zarvistic]

Not exactly. Here's some exact text.



So let's break that down line-by-line.

"As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands." This sentence is descriptive. It does not explain any mechanics, it merely describes the concept and appearance. When a piece of text does not give a mechanical explanation, but merely a description, it is commonly referred to as fluff.

"While your eldritch claws exist you may make up to two claw attacks as natural weapons." This sentence outlines a specific mechanical benefit. To wit: You may make two claw attacks. That is a mechanic this text adds. When text outlines a specific mechanic, it is referred to as crunch.

"You are automatically proficient with your eldritch claws." Proficiency is a game mechanic. Crunch.

"On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage." Damage mechanics. Crunch.

"Once you form your eldritch claws they remain until just before the beginning of your next turn." Turns and ability durations are mechanics. Mm, crunchy.

"You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist. A monk may not use eldritch claws as part of her flurry of blows." Mechanical exclusions are still mechanics. Crunchy-crunch-crunch.

So, let's review. The sentence that says that eldritch claws are "formed from" your eldritch blast - not "using," but "formed from," in the same way that if you "formed" a plowshare from a sword you'd have a hard time parrying with it - is fluff. It describes no actual mechanics. By contrast, the sentence that says that you cannot use your eldritch blast ability - which, as an ability, includes blast shapes and the like - is clearly descriptive of mechanics.

Saying that the fluff of an ability trumps the mechanics, while it may involve a common-sense interpretation, doesn't work. For example, not all [Fire] spells actually cause fires to break out, even though logically they should, since they all involve fire. The ones that do cause conflagration are specifically indicated in their spell descriptions. Saying, "Well, it's made of fire, so it causes fire to break out," simply isn't RAW.

Same thing here. The mechanical, crunchy part of this feat says that the claws preclude eldritch blast. The other part, the part on which you rely, is not a mechanical description. It is fluff. An engaging description of the feat's effect, but not an actual mechanic.
Without what you are calling fluff there is no way to even have these claws tho.. not very crunchy

[Darg]

Without what you are calling fluff there is no way to even have these claws tho.. not very crunchy

Exactly. To top it off, the plain text explains what the benefit is doing: allowing you to deliver your eldritch blast as a melee attack. Without the "fluff" the rest of the text makes 0 sense in character. Not to mention that you lose the "as a free action" part.

You are allowed to do something and the feat does not say you aren't allowed to do it. Hence why hellfire blast and essences work. The line that says you can't use your normal eldritch blast implies that the feat is already using your eldritch blast as there is no "non-normal" eldritch blast other than the feat, unless we allow modified eldritch blasts to function that is.


Thanks for the info.

I'm going to try and convince my DM that hellfire and claws should work. :) If not I think I will go for a Glaive lock. I don't like the idea of doing monk/lock. It doesn't fit my character or back ground idea. Not even sure if we will ever reach level 10 since that is high level and most people I play with are not fan of high level characters since it slows down the game. If he allows it I think I will go for:

lvl 1Willing Deformaty (+2 to intimidate)
lvl 1 Deform claws (+1d6 poison claws)
lvl 3 Eldritch Claw Feat
lvl 6 improved natural attack claw
lvl 9 weapon focus unarmed
lvl 10 PRC hellfire warlock
lvl 12 Hellsworn (1D6 unholy damage)
lvl 15 Rapidstrike

If my DM will allow it. I won't be optimized much I guess but it should be fun.

I think it sounds fun. The con damage is a noticeable drawback and con becomes a resource. An interesting combo if you'd like, is the imperious command feat from DrU combo'ed with frightful blast. Make the enemy shaken and then unleash a full blown panic with the fearsome armor ability from the same book allowing you to demoralize with a move action.

[Gruftzwerg]

Not exactly. Here's some exact text.



So let's break that down line-by-line.

"As a free action, you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws extending almost an entire foot from your hands." This sentence is descriptive. It does not explain any mechanics, it merely describes the concept and appearance. When a piece of text does not give a mechanical explanation, but merely a description, it is commonly referred to as fluff.


That sentence is already part of the "Benefit:" section and thus part of the rules.
___________________________________

The sentence we have been arguing about is:

You can deliver your Eldritch Blast as a melee attack.
And this sentence is not part of the benefit section and defined as "plain language" in the general Feats description. And as shown in my previous posts, "plain language" ain't "technical language" and therefore may oversimplify things.
Like in our chase. The statement that "you deliver your Eldritch Blast as a melee attack" is oversimplified and doesn't reflect the "Benefit:" section at all.
It doesn't tell you that you combine your Eldritch Blast damage on top of your unarmed strike damage to get your claw damage. If that sentence would be a rule, you would make a melee attack with your BAB and only do Eldritch Blast damage. It's contradicting the "Benefit:" section and thus is only plain (non rule) language.

[Darg]

It doesn't tell you that you combine your Eldritch Blast damage on top of your unarmed strike damage to get your claw damage. If that sentence would be a rule, you would make a melee attack with your BAB and only do Eldritch Blast damage. It's contradicting the "Benefit:" section and thus is only plain (non rule) language.

What? Yes it does....


On a successful attack with an eldritch claw, you deal your normal amount of unarmed strike damage plus your eldritch blast damage.

It doesn't say you deal your normal unarmed strike damage plus an amount equal to your eldritch blast damage. It says your deal your actual eldritch blast damage. It doesn't have to be a rule in this case as the benefit doesn't exclude it from being so. If the plain text is saying something and the benefit section doesn't exclude, but actively includes supportive language then there is no reason for the plain text to be wrong. You are delivering your eldritch blast with melee attack. There are 2 areas in the benefit section other than the above quote that are pointedly saying that it is your eldritch blast without directly saying so: "you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws" and "You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist."

[Gruftzwerg]

What? Yes it does....



It doesn't say you deal your normal unarmed strike damage plus an amount equal to your eldritch blast damage. It says your deal your actual eldritch blast damage. It doesn't have to be a rule in this case as the benefit doesn't exclude it from being so. If the plain text is saying something and the benefit section doesn't exclude, but actively includes supportive language then there is no reason for the plain text to be wrong. You are delivering your eldritch blast with melee attack. There are 2 areas in the benefit section other than the above quote that are pointedly saying that it is your eldritch blast without directly saying so: "you can form the energy of your eldritch blast into a set of claws" and "You cannot use your normal eldritch blast ability while your eldritch claws exist."

Sorry but you misunderstood my argument. I only pointed out how the very first (fluff) sentence of the feat (before the Benefit section) is contradicting the Benefit section.
The Benefit section nowhere does reflect that an Eldritch Blast is delivered. Mechanically you get Claws with a combined damage of unarmed strike + eldritch blast dmg. It nowhere pretends to be a Blast Shape and thus you don't "deliver your Eldritch Blast" mechanically. The Benefit section is in contradiction to this and thus you can't use Eldritch Essences to upgrade your Eldritch Claws. Just making use of Eldritch Blast to form the Claws ain't enough. We have a defined keywords (blast shape and essences) which are used everywhere else where it applies (e.g. Eldritch Glaive, or Eldritch Theurge/Eldritch Disciple abilities).
Eldritch Claws clearly lack this permission and thus you can't apply essences to them (nor does Spell Resistance have any effect against the Claw dmg for the same reason).

[Darg]

And I pointed out how it wasn't contradictory. You can't do eldritch blast damage without it being your eldritch blast. Modifying your eldritch blast isn't even an action.

Maybe you could explain how doing eldritch blast damage is not using your eldritch blast? If we replace the line "plus your eldritch blast damage" with "plus your sneak attack damage," the assumption would be that it would still have the qualities of being a sneak attack. Meaning it wouldn't do damage to crit immune enemies, nor would you be able to use it without removing their dex bonus or flanking.

[Troacctid]

Maybe you could explain how doing eldritch blast damage is not using your eldritch blast?
The feat is pretty clear that you cannot use your EB while the claws are active.


If we replace the line "plus your eldritch blast damage" with "plus your sneak attack damage," the assumption would be that it would still have the qualities of being a sneak attack. Meaning it wouldn't do damage to crit immune enemies, nor would you be able to use it without removing their dex bonus or flanking.
Disagree. Abilities like that do in fact exist, and they all include text that explicitly spells out how they interact with sneak-immune enemies.

[Darg]

The feat is pretty clear that you cannot use your EB while the claws are active.

I don't know why you are bringing this up when the argument is about whether or not eldritch claws themselves are eldritch blast which would preclude the prevention clause.



Disagree. Abilities like that do in fact exist, and they all include text that explicitly spells out how they interact with sneak-immune enemies.

I don't recall any. Would you mind listing a few?

[tokyooo25]

I don't recall any. Would you mind listing a few?

Some close example would be 'Penetrating strike' that immediately comes to mind to me. It uses sneak attack dice to determine it's damage despite sneak attack not being able to be used against targets immune to sneak attacks.

Unrelated thought, craven would not apply to penetrating strike because it is not a sneak attack in my humble interpretation even if it does utilize your sneak attack dice as it is not a 'sneak attack' in and of itself.