None of my DMs have EVER used a warlock against my parties. Zip. Nada. None. WHY?

[Cyclops08]

OK so that is about 5 or 6 DMs. I have never had to fight a warlock. I am just now playing one and it struck me.

is it one class to many to keep up with? Are they cheesy? Are they two powerful? Overlooked?
I am just now starting to play a warlock. and I don't understand why not. (6th level 3rd Hex/Pact of chain, 4th Sorcerer.)

I could see a Kobold with a D10 attack might be too deadly at first level. How about at 4th level? It's now a D10 +4 (or more with Hex).

Is this just my luck with DMs and the rest of you are having to kill the pesky locks?

I'm making a point to buy a Brooch of Shielding because it give resistance to force (live by the blast, die by the blast), but is it really a waste?

[KorvinStarmast]

Is this just my luck with DMs and the rest of you are having to kill the pesky locks?

I'm making a point to buy a Brooch of Shielding because it give resistance to force (live by the blast, die by the blast), but is it really a waste? My Saltmarsh group (me DM) ran into a warlock in a tower a few miles outside of town. The one I had there was Warlock of the Archfey from Volo's.

It might be that they are not in the MM; might be why you rarely see them.

[stoutstien]

There are about a dozen and a half warlockish based NPCs but honestly without reading the statblock out loud most players would never even realize it.

[chainer1216]

Because 5e doesn't use the class system for enemies.

[Catullus64]

I mean... Warlock is a PC class. You haven't been fighting them because by default because the game assumes you'll be fighting monsters rather than NPCs purpose-built from PC classes. There are Warlock NPCs, and monsters that use Warlock-like spellcasting, (both in Volo's Guide) but none to my knowledge in the Monster Manual or other core books. It's not abnormal that your DMs haven't been chucking them at you.

Now if your DMs throw PC-like enemies at you on the regular, and you just happen to have never encountered a Warlock-like, that is a little weird...

[JNAProductions]

OK so that is about 5 or 6 DMs. I have never had to fight a warlock. I am just now playing one and it struck me.

is it one class to many to keep up with? Are they cheesy? Are they two powerful? Overlooked?
I am just now starting to play a warlock. and I don't understand why not. (6th level 3rd Hex/Pact of chain, 4th Sorcerer.)

I could see a Kobold with a D10 attack might be too deadly at first level. How about at 4th level? It's now a D10 +4 (or more with Hex).

Is this just my luck with DMs and the rest of you are having to kill the pesky locks?

I'm making a point to buy a Brooch of Shielding because it give resistance to force (live by the blast, die by the blast), but is it really a waste?

As a DM, I don't use PC classes against PCs. I sometimes lift features from the classes, or have a monster/NPC inspired by the classes, but I've never (that I can recall) used a PC sheet as an enemy's stats.

[MaxWilson]

OK so that is about 5 or 6 DMs. I have never had to fight a warlock. I am just now playing one and it struck me.

is it one class to many to keep up with? Are they cheesy? Are they two powerful? Overlooked?
I am just now starting to play a warlock. and I don't understand why not. (6th level 3rd Hex/Pact of chain, 4th Sorcerer.)

I could see a Kobold with a D10 attack might be too deadly at first level. How about at 4th level? It's now a D10 +4 (or more with Hex).

Is this just my luck with DMs and the rest of you are having to kill the pesky locks?

I'm making a point to buy a Brooch of Shielding because it give resistance to force (live by the blast, die by the blast), but is it really a waste?

Maybe the DM just doesn't think they're cool, doesn't like 'em, and doesn't use them?

Also, how do you know you've never faced a warlock? It's not like you can tell whether the guy casting a Hypnotic Pattern at you is a wizard or a warlock.


I mean... Warlock is a PC class. You haven't been fighting them because by default because the game assumes you'll be fighting monsters rather than NPCs purpose-built from PC classes. There are Warlock NPCs, and monsters that use Warlock-like spellcasting, ((A) both in Volo's Guide) but none to my knowledge in the Monster Manual or other core books. It's not abnormal that your DMs haven't been chucking them at you.

Now if your DMs throw PC-like enemies at you on the regular, and you just happen to have never encountered a Warlock-like, that is a little weird...

(A) Volo's has the Neogi Master and three kinds of Yuan-ti warlocks (Pit Master, Mind Whisperer and Nightmare Speaker) and the Firenewt Warlock of Imix, yes. Additionally Mordenkainen's Tomb of Foes also has the Deathlock, Deathlock Mastermind, Drow Arachnomancer, and Gloomweaver.

[Trask]

I've rarely seen explicitly classed NPCs as a player, but now that you mention it I've never seen a warlock, not even an NPC using the lore of one. I've seen a lot of NPC wizards, by far the most with clerics as a distant second.

If I had to hazard a guess, mechanically speaking, I'd say that warlocks are less useful to a dungeon master since they have more limited spell slots and fill the gaps with consistent attack rolls. There are plenty of creatures in the MM who can put out good damage, fewer with the kind of controlling power that spellcasters bring to the table. If you are going to have an NPC (enemy) spellcaster, better to use one that utilizes the power of spellcasting closer to its maximum potential.

[luuma]

I think I've run a couple monsters with warlock features as a DM. As others have stated, the reason you aren't seeing many of them is because they don't appear frequently or visibly in statblocks. Off the top of my head there are very, very few statblocks in printed monster books that are explicitly warlocks - I think it's about four or so warlocks from VGM and little more than that.

They aren't an overpowered or particularly interesting foe to fight, though I will say that hunger of Hadar is an exciting spell to cast on your players if you're a DM.

[Mastikator]

Off the top of my head these classes have been used against the party in games I've played in.
One druid.
One cleric and one wizard.
One bard.
One warlock (I THINK, it may have been a modified gnoll, it cast Arms of Hadar which I think is a warlock spell)

[Merudo]

Tomb of Annihilation has a lost dwarven city inhabited by Firenewt Warlocks of Imix.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because 5e doesn't use the class system for enemies.


I mean... Warlock is a PC class. You haven't been fighting them because by default because the game assumes you'll be fighting monsters rather than NPCs purpose-built from PC classes. There are Warlock NPCs, and monsters that use Warlock-like spellcasting, (both in Volo's Guide) but none to my knowledge in the Monster Manual or other core books. It's not abnormal that your DMs haven't been chucking them at you.

Now if your DMs throw PC-like enemies at you on the regular, and you just happen to have never encountered a Warlock-like, that is a little weird...


As a DM, I don't use PC classes against PCs. I sometimes lift features from the classes, or have a monster/NPC inspired by the classes, but I've never (that I can recall) used a PC sheet as an enemy's stats.

These. Plus, you might have fought one and never realized (because the differences don't show up strongly from the player's side of the table).

I actually use warlock-style people a lot in the setting lore. That doesn't mean they have warlock levels though. And especially not some multi-classed char-op PC build. And I've used the NPC "warlock-lite" characters. And people who cast warlock spells (Armor of Agathys is a favorite) without being warlocks. NPCs and PCs are not the same and their build rules are completely different.

[ZRN]

I think the answer to the OP's question is narrative simplicity: if an enemy is a warlock, they're in a pact with some bigger, meaner entity whose place in the world the DM has to consider. If the enemy is just a wizard or sorcerer, there's no necessary connection to a more powerful entity.

[OldTrees1]

In 3E I have used Warlocks against the PCs.

In 5E it is a hassle to make an NPC with levels instead of using existing stat blocks.

Warlock is a bit more niche thematically than Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, or Wizard. Although they would work well as Arcane Cultists.

How does one recognize the difference between an NPC Sorcerer and Warlock unless an Eldritch Blast is used?


Yes a Brooch of Shielding might be a niche item.

[J-H]

I have warlocks in my current campaign. They work for a very advanced Elder Aboleth.
The party encountered them, but hasn't had a need to fight them.

[Man_Over_Game]

Because 5e doesn't use the class system for enemies.

Yup. If you don't know their spellcasting modifier, what cantrips they're casting, or whether they have a familiar that's hidden, it's really hard to tell the difference between a Sorcerer, a Warlock, and an evil Wizard.

The Monster Manual doesn't care about labels.

[Dienekes]

Because 5e doesn't use the class system for enemies.

This for me.

Actually one of my first recurring villains in my campaign was a Warlock in all but class. But I wanted him to cast more than 2 spells during the course of the combat. So guess what? He cast more than two spells.

[diplomancer]

Warlocks, with their SR casting and Invocations shenanigans, make great antagonists. If you're fighting one, he probably already lost.

[quinron]

At this point, I'm kind of curious: OP, does your DM use the other PC classes as monsters? Everyone's saying that monsters don't use PC classes explicitly, which is true in the published content (for the most part), but I'm now wondering if your DMs have done that.

[Cikomyr2]

Warlocks, with their SR casting and Invocations shenanigans, make great antagonists. If you're fighting one, he probably already lost.

A warlock with a full possy is actually a good medium term villain that harass and tracks the PCs

[Man_Over_Game]

A warlock with a full possy is actually a good medium term villain that harass and tracks the PCs

The tricky part is finding out how to keep him alive without railroading the players.

[Dark.Revenant]

OK so that is about 5 or 6 DMs. I have never had to fight a warlock. I am just now playing one and it struck me.

is it one class to many to keep up with? Are they cheesy? Are they two powerful? Overlooked?
I am just now starting to play a warlock. and I don't understand why not. (6th level 3rd Hex/Pact of chain, 4th Sorcerer.)

I could see a Kobold with a D10 attack might be too deadly at first level. How about at 4th level? It's now a D10 +4 (or more with Hex).

Is this just my luck with DMs and the rest of you are having to kill the pesky locks?

I'm making a point to buy a Brooch of Shielding because it give resistance to force (live by the blast, die by the blast), but is it really a waste?

Funny story: a couple sessions ago, our party was jumped by ten warlocks who all had Circle of Death prepared.

[Contrast]

Funny story: a couple sessions ago, our party was jumped by ten warlocks who all had Circle of Death prepared.

I played an Adventurers League module a little while ago that had a room with, amoung other things, like 6 warlocks in it who all had Counterspell. I was the only primary spellcaster in the party.

That was a fun fight for me :smallyuk:

[Keravath]

It probably depends on your DMs.

The monster manual and most adventures use NPC stat blocks. Many DMs thus use only NPC stat blocks for their worlds, filling out NPCs using the templates in the Monster Manual. There aren't any warlock NPCs in the Monster Manual if I recall though I might be missing it. There are Archmages, Acolytes, Priests, Mages and other spellcasters. As a result, if you play with DMs that like to use NPC statblocks then the odds are higher that you would never run into a warlock.

On the other hand, other DMs, like myself for example, will use both NPC statblocks, PC templated NPCs as well as unique NPCs that might diverge from either the methods for creating NPCs or PCs depending on the circumstances. In this kind of situation, the odds of running into a warlock NPC as an opponent (or an ally) might be a lot higher.

So, in the end, it comes down to the preference of the particular DM on the mechanisms they use to create the NPCs that the characters can interact with in their world. In some games you will run into a PC template NPC warlock, in others you might run into a custom NPC with warlock like abilities and it others you might never run into a creature that has abilities like a warlock.

[Cyclops08]

At this point, I'm kind of curious: OP, does your DM use the other PC classes as monsters? Everyone's saying that monsters don't use PC classes explicitly, which is true in the published content (for the most part), but I'm now wondering if your DMs have done that.
Yes, he does. Just recently we have fought Leveled sorcerer Kobolds, all classes/levels of humans, dwarf, and gythianki cultists of an abyssal power...all sorts of classed NPCs.
But never a warlock.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I'd say it's difficult to balance Warlocks as an opponent. They only get a few spell slots, so it's much better used as a PC class or an NPC tag-along than an enemy. To illustrate that, just look at the Warlock opponents published so far, namely the Warlock of the Fiend in Volo's.

The Warlock of the Fiend is a CR 7 opponent, with 12 HD, and 17th level casting. Yes, 17th level. This is a CR 7 who can cast Feeblemind and Finger of Death each once. Feeblemind is an Int save vs having your character ruined, you only get to retry the save once every 30 days in-game (with Int 1), and it otherwise takes a Greater Restoration (5th) or better to fix it. He can also use Banishment on two targets, Flame Strike, and if he softens up a character first his Finger of Death that averages 61 damage will turn them into a zombie that's permanently under his control.

I would realistically only ever use that as a sidekick to a stronger opponent against a much higher level party, unless I felt like they needed to be punished for something.

[Cikomyr2]

The tricky part is finding out how to keep him alive without railroading the players.

You have to target him and kill him in the first 2 rounds of combat. Because he specializes in hit-and-retreat. His posses acts as speed bumps

[Unoriginal]

Yes, he does. Just recently we have fought Leveled sorcerer Kobolds, all classes/levels of humans, dwarf, and gythianki cultists of an abyssal power...all sorts of classed NPCs.
But never a warlock.

How did you learn the classes of the ones you fought? Did your DM tell you "this one is a X"?

[Talionis]

I've rarely seen explicitly classed NPCs as a player, but now that you mention it I've never seen a warlock, not even an NPC using the lore of one. I've seen a lot of NPC wizards, by far the most with clerics as a distant second.

If I had to hazard a guess, mechanically speaking, I'd say that warlocks are less useful to a dungeon master since they have more limited spell slots and fill the gaps with consistent attack rolls. There are plenty of creatures in the MM who can put out good damage, fewer with the kind of controlling power that spellcasters bring to the table. If you are going to have an NPC (enemy) spellcaster, better to use one that utilizes the power of spellcasting closer to its maximum potential.

This. With limited spell slots per encounter they are limited against multiple enemies. When we use them, they tend to play a witch role against lower level PCs.

[LudicSavant]

Is this just my luck with DMs and the rest of you are having to kill the pesky locks? I am having to kill the pesky locks, myself.

You know what's fun? When a DM brings out their Devil's Sight + Darkness combo boss Hexblade and dives into melee. And then you pull out your upcast Continual Flame item that you made 20 sessions ago that they completely forgot about, and they suddenly realize they're surrounded in melee in full view of everyone. https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

[Cyclops08]

How did you learn the classes of the ones you fought? Did your DM tell you "this one is a X"?
Pretty much. He calls cannon fodder Kobold Sorcerer #1, #!, etc

[Unoriginal]

A fun Warlock NPC is the Xwart Warlock of Raxxivort.


Pretty much. He calls cannon fodder Kobold Sorcerer #1, #!, etc

Then it sounds like you should ask your DM why you never faced Warlocks. If they're that open about what the NPCs are aside from personal tastes I can't see any reason for this absence.

[Sigreid]

Speaking only for myself, I just don't like them. I don't like the flavor or the mechanical implementation so I don't play them on either side of the screen.

[ClassB2Carcin]

True story: running a Tier 3 AL game, party of five players, experienced but new to Tier 3, bragging about their powerful builds.

Three rounds into the first combat against two Warlocks of the Fiend and some mooks: two of the party are still standing, the Bard is about to become a zombie, the Ranger is Feebleminded, and the Wizard is bleeding out due to eating several Hellish Rebukes.

I took pity on the party and let them negotiate a surrender: the CHA 24 bard did not become a zombie.

Warlock NPCs are nasty and effective.

[Kane0]

Because when you're fighting one they're basically the same as any other NPC caster?

[Onos]

If you mean the PC class, then good on your GM's - PC classes are built very differently to monsters, and as such will make very poor encounters.

If you just mean you've never fought a cultist/warlock/bad spellcaster that's definitely a little odd. I can only assume that either your party would be swiftly dismantled by a solid caster, or that your GM's prefer to throw mundane enemies around for whatever reason.

[Eldariel]

I must admit, I've never deployed a Warlock against my party in spite of running almost all my NPCs by PC rules. Mostly because I use a lot of lore lifted from old editions and systems and Warlocks didn't exist in those. There are basically no established Warlocks in any settings nor do any races tend towards Pact Magic particularly (perhaps Kuo'toa, but I don't really even run those). That said, I think I'm changing Wizard NPC #7 into Warlock (particularly since it's a Drow and Drow Warlock feels pretty natural) just to address this a bit.

But to the point, this might have a lot to do with the tradition of the game and settings. Even Sorcerer is better established; Warlocks just don't really exist. All innate casting is sorcerous in nature after all, and then you have Wizards as book-learners and Clerics as divine and Druids as natural conduits. Warlocks, channelers of other kinds of power, would need to be written in.


If you mean the PC class, then good on your GM's - PC classes are built very differently to monsters, and as such will make very poor encounters.

If you just mean you've never fought a cultist/warlock/bad spellcaster that's definitely a little odd. I can only assume that either your party would be swiftly dismantled by a solid caster, or that your GM's prefer to throw mundane enemies around for whatever reason.

This position is strange to me. DMG specifically says that PC classes are totally a valid tool for NPC and monster building and development (pages 92 and 283 respectively IIRC). Where does this idea that there'd be anything wrong with using them come from? Because IME they work just fine.

[Arkhios]

I used the Warlock of the GOO against my players a few years back, and it turned out to be little more than a wet fart.

[Onos]

I must admit, I've never deployed a Warlock against my party in spite of running almost all my NPCs by PC rules. Mostly because I use a lot of lore lifted from old editions and systems and Warlocks didn't exist in those. There are basically no established Warlocks in any settings nor do any races tend towards Pact Magic particularly (perhaps Kuo'toa, but I don't really even run those). That said, I think I'm changing Wizard NPC #7 into Warlock (particularly since it's a Drow and Drow Warlock feels pretty natural) just to address this a bit.

But to the point, this might have a lot to do with the tradition of the game and settings. Even Sorcerer is better established; Warlocks just don't really exist. All innate casting is sorcerous in nature after all, and then you have Wizards as book-learners and Clerics as divine and Druids as natural conduits. Warlocks, channelers of other kinds of power, would need to be written in.



This position is strange to me. DMG specifically says that PC classes are totally a valid tool for NPC and monster building and development (pages 92 and 283 respectively IIRC). Where does this idea that there'd be anything wrong with using them come from? Because they work just fine.

A valid tool, certainty. Many of the class features are useful, and even nested features (by which I mean things like Invocations and Manoeuvres) can be really cool if used properly in a statblock. But there are plenty of ways in which they are built very differently - Hit Dice, "levelling" monsters, Short/Long Rest abilities, Ability Score Caps, the list goes on. At the end of the day PCs and monsters are created for very different purposes under the 5e ruleset.

Totally fine to use some odds and ends, and actually a really good way to practice building custom beasties, but I'd sooner wing a combat with an imaginary statblock than run a PC Vs DMPC fight.

[Eldariel]

A valid tool, certainty. Many of the class features are useful, and even nested features (by which I mean things like Invocations and Manoeuvres) can be really cool if used properly in a statblock. But there are plenty of ways in which they are built very differently - Hit Dice, "levelling" monsters, Short/Long Rest abilities, Ability Score Caps, the list goes on. At the end of the day PCs and monsters are created for very different purposes under the 5e ruleset.

Totally fine to use some odds and ends, and actually a really good way to practice building custom beasties, but I'd sooner wing a combat with an imaginary statblock than run a PC Vs DMPC fight.

Sure, but why the antipathy towards PC vs. PC-rule NPC? I've yet to encounter problems with it; yet online I often read about people abhorring the idea. Am I missing something, or are the presented issues with PC-ruled NPCs exaggerated?

[neonchameleon]

Sure, but why the antipathy towards PC vs. PC-rule NPC? I've yet to encounter problems with it; yet online I often read about people abhorring the idea. Am I missing something, or are the presented issues with PC-ruled NPCs exaggerated?

PC-ruled NPCs are glass cannons. Look up the NPC creation guidelines in the DMG sometime - or just the ogre's CR2, 59hp. And PCs are vastly fiddlier than NPCs so there is a lot of work the DM.

[Eldariel]

PC-ruled NPCs are glass cannons. Look up the NPC creation guidelines in the DMG sometime - or just the ogre's CR2, 59hp. And PCs are vastly fiddlier than NPCs so there is a lot of work the DM.

More work is certainly true, but glass cannons...eh. I mean, the same way as PCs survive, NPCs too have access to the same mobility and defense options as the PCs would. If we want raw tank PCs, level 3 Totem Warrior Barbarian can certainly outtank an Ogre, as can a level 2 Moon Druid. They just do it with combination of AC, saves, HP, and abilities, as opposed to just one-two of the four. Other classes lose out in raw HP but can certainly use their abilities to make themselves a hard target: Expeditious Retreat, Sanctuary, Second Wind, Lay on Hands, etc.

[MoiMagnus]

If by "warlock" you mean "NPCs that get their power from a pact with a devil or something", then I'd say it's bad luck. I get those as villain quite frequently through various RPG, including D&D. In fact, "ruler of a prosperous city that is secretly a warlock selling the souls of its citizens to maintain prosperity" is almost a recurring tropes at our table.

If by "warlock" you mean "NPCs that use special warlock mechanics", then I'd say it's not unreasonable. I'm not sure there is a single entry in the original Monster Manual that uses short-rest based resources. If you want "standard magic", there is not much point in having multiple spellcasting rules for your monsters (they're not gonna complain about being boring to play). And if you want to go wild with magical effects, there is not much point in restricting yourself to spell slots, and instead go with abilities like the Beholder's rays.

[I'm not seeing it's bad if you use them. I'm just saying that I understand why a GM would not bother with it.]

[stoutstien]

Sure, but why the antipathy towards PC vs. PC-rule NPC? I've yet to encounter problems with it; yet online I often read about people abhorring the idea. Am I missing something, or are the presented issues with PC-ruled NPCs exaggerated?

It's just adds work with little receivable results. There no clean PC LV > CR conversion. CR isn't perfect but it a good rough outlook where each DM PC(NPC) would have to be worked out to see whats what. Best bet is just take 1-2 iconic features and build a NPC. Sneak attack and cunning action, rage and reckless attack, and so on.

[Onos]

Sure, but why the antipathy towards PC vs. PC-rule NPC? I've yet to encounter problems with it; yet online I often read about people abhorring the idea. Am I missing something, or are the presented issues with PC-ruled NPCs exaggerated?

All depends on what exactly you're referring to - with regards to full on PC vs PC, I'll reiterate my previous list of issues with using literally exactly the PC-generation rules. HP is calculated differently, classes aren't balanced to work with CR (counterintuitively), anything which recharges on a Rest won't work as intended, blah blah blah. If you're already going to the effort of making custom monsters, make proper custom monsters rather than forcing something to fit where it's not intended. Like, you don't need to make sure stats match up with things like Attack Bonus, AC, all that stuff - technically speaking you don't even need the stats! But by using the building guidelines properly, your party can figure out the monster's stats and plan from there. Much the same deal here, I'd rather be consistent with the challenges I present my table. Which means not using PC-HP rules, amongst a bunch of other stuff.

If you're just meaning the occasional use of a feature which may be found on a PC sheet, purposefully added to a standardised NPC statblock with thought given to both theme and mechanics, which is in line with previous encounters...sure, works like a charm. But then you're not generating this as a PC, you're generating it as a monster and using some unusual features. As I mentioned, consistency with the rules. I strongly dislike when my players come up with a plan which would work by normal rules, but because I've done something different they screw up.

I have little doubt that the general "ahhh, NEVER TOUCH ANY PC FEATURE" is overhyped. But PCs and monsters are designed for fundamentally different purposes. Monsters are "meant" to last three rounds and provide an entertaining challenge for the players to overcome while run by someone else. PCs are "meant" to defeat several "three-round" encounters in a day while providing a selection of entertaining abilities for the players to use in addition to a whole bunch of non-combat features. The only thing they have in common from a design perspective is that they are both intended for use in combat.

[Unoriginal]

Sure, but why the antipathy towards PC vs. PC-rule NPC? I've yet to encounter problems with it; yet online I often read about people abhorring the idea. Am I missing something, or are the presented issues with PC-ruled NPCs exaggerated?

In my experience, PC-rule NPCs just aren't worth it. They're too much work compared to the result, even in cases they do work out.

PCs have a lot of features that aren't really relevant for NPCs, for example. I like my NPCs quick and simple to make.

Plus PC-rule NPCs have low HPs and high damage output compared to NPC-rule NPCs. It's a question of tastes, but I don't like that.


So yeah if you like those things or have an easier time using those things I can get why you prefer them, but personally if I was asked "do you want to make this NPC with NPC rules or PC rules?" there is basically no way I'd select "PC rules".

[Chronos]

OK, everyone saying that NPCs are fundamentally different from PCs: List for me all of the differences between an 18th level abjuration wizard PC and an Archmage NPC.

[Avonar]

OK, everyone saying that NPCs are fundamentally different from PCs: List for me all of the differences between an 18th level abjuration wizard PC and an Archmage NPC.

All the School of Abjuration abilities the wizard NPC gets and the HP for starters?

The most important difference however: It's much easier for me as a DM to use an Archmage instead of building an 18th level wizard.

[KorvinStarmast]

A warlock with a full possy is actually a good medium term villain that harass and tracks the PCs Posse. :smallwink: (Guessing a voice-to-text thing)

You know what's fun? When a DM brings out their Devil's Sight + Darkness combo boss Hexblade and dives into melee. And then you pull out your upcast Continual Flame item that you made 20 sessions ago that they completely forgot about, and they suddenly realize they're surrounded in melee in full view of everyone. https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png Now that cracks me up. Every cleric I ever built did this, at some point: got the 50 GP worth of ruby, a head band/circlet, and cast continual flame on it, and them put it into a leather pouch in their back pack. Retrieve and wear when needed. :smallsmile:

[BoutsofInsanity]

I don't know why, they are the easiest casters to run against the party.

They have a strong cantrip they can fire over and over that hinders the players.

They have a few strong spells they can fire off for the encounter.

If they are able to escape they are at full fighting efficiency off of a short rest, so they are able to be reoccurring.

As far as ease of use from a DM perspective they are just, easy.

---------
Once you get to high levels however, that changes. Once a devil pact warlock hits level 14 they can delete most party members if you aren't careful.

Mental Prison, repelling blast and hurl through hell can instantly put down 20d10 psychic damage, 1d10 + cha force damage over the course of 2 rounds. So do keep in mind that Warlocks later get quite Bursty.

[Unoriginal]

OK, everyone saying that NPCs are fundamentally different from PCs: List for me all of the differences between an 18th level abjuration wizard PC and an Archmage NPC.

Stats:

Archmage: STR 10 (+0) DEX 14 (+2) CON 12 (+1) INT 20 (+5) WIS 15 (+2) CHA 16 (+3)

Abjurer: Depends on the method you use

HPs:

Archmage: 99 (81+18*1) (18d8+18)

Abjurer: 74 + (17*CON mod) (18d6+ (18*CON mod))

Features:

Archmage: Magic Resistance, Spellcasting (with already selected spells).

Abjurer: Spellcasting (with spells at choice), Spellbook, Ritual Casting, Spellcasting Focus, Abjuration Savant, Arcane Ward, Projected Ward, Improved Abjuration, Spell Resistance, Ability Score Improvements (4 times).

Proficiencies:

Archmage: Arcana, History, Language (6 times), daggers.

Abjurer: 2 skills, any skill, tool or language provided by race and background, daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs, light crossbows

Now, your turn: since you seem tp be implying that NPCs and PCs aren't fundamentally different, please list for me all the differences (or the lack of them, if there isn't any) between a Bard NPC and a Lvl 8 Bard (of the subclass you feels it based on).

[stoutstien]

I don't know why, they are the easiest casters to run against the party.

They have a strong cantrip they can fire over and over that hinders the players.

They have a few strong spells they can fire off for the encounter.

If they are able to escape they are at full fighting efficiency off of a short rest, so they are able to be reoccurring.

As far as ease of use from a DM perspective they are just, easy.

---------
Once you get to high levels however, that changes. Once a devil pact warlock hits level 14 they can delete most party members if you aren't careful.

Mental Prison, repelling blast and hurl through hell can instantly put down 20d10 psychic damage, 1d10 + cha force damage over the course of 2 rounds. So do keep in mind that Warlocks later get quite Bursty.


Most classes can be a little too bursty for effective use as NPCs if you aren't careful. Even a basic lv 5 half orc champion fighter could action surge> shove prone > greatsword beat down half the classes in a single turn if they are the same level.

[Eldariel]

All the School of Abjuration abilities the wizard NPC gets and the HP for starters?

The most important difference however: It's much easier for me as a DM to use an Archmage instead of building an 18th level wizard.

So if I already have PCs built and have the cognitive models to play them ready, we can agree that I have no reason whatsoever to use non-PC statblocks, right? Since the only reason is DM simplicity, which is not a thing if you enjoy crafting PCs.

[MoiMagnus]

So if I already have PCs built and have the cognitive models to play them ready, we can agree that I have no reason whatsoever to use non-PC statblocks, right? Since the only reason is DM simplicity, which is not a thing if you enjoy crafting PCs.

Mostly yes, at least as long as there is only one of them.

Not a lot of peoples have a cognitive models ready to play a team of PCs as quickly as one could play a team of "simple NPCs", but if you also are able to do so, then you can extend that to a groups of creatures too.

I say "mostly" as while it is true that simplicity is one of the main argument, it's not the only one. Non-PC statblock are usually designed differently, in particular they tend to:
(1) Have much more HP but less AC
(2) Rely less on reactions
(3) For strong creatures, have legendary actions
[And I'm probably forgetting few other good differences]

(1) Less AC means that the players are more likely to hit, but more HP means they will need more hits to succeed. This decrease variance of the fight, and also decrease the number of turns where the players feel they "achieved nothing" because their attacks failed.
(2) Less reactions means that monsters are much more "predictable", which ease the flow of Player turns. Additionally, it ensures monsters almost always have Aop ready to be used, which make positioning more important.
(3) Legendary actions allows to spread the power of a boss along the round, rather than having "during their turn they kill someone, then the remaining of the round they get bodied, then during their turn they kill someone, etc". It also makes initiative slightly less decisive of the result of the fight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Mostly yes, at least as long as there is only one of them.

Not a lot of peoples have a cognitive models ready to play a team of PCs as quickly as one could play a team of "simple NPCs", but if you also are able to do so, then you can extend that to a groups of creatures too.

I say "mostly" as while it is true that simplicity is one of the main argument, it's not the only one. Non-PC statblock are usually designed differently, in particular they tend to:
(1) Have much more HP but less AC
(2) Rely less on reactions
(3) For strong creatures, have legendary actions
[And I'm probably forgetting few other good differences]

(1) Less AC means that the players are more likely to hit, but more HP means they will need more hits to succeed. This decrease variance of the fight, and also decrease the number of turns where the players feel they "achieved nothing" because their attacks failed.
(2) Less reactions means that monsters are much more "predictable", which ease the flow of Player turns. Additionally, it ensures monsters almost always have Aop ready to be used, which make positioning more important.
(3) Legendary actions allows to spread the power of a boss along the round, rather than having "during their turn they kill someone, then the remaining of the round they get bodied, then during their turn they kill someone, etc". It also makes initiative slightly less decisive of the result of the fight.

And not just reactions. NPC builds have Multiattack, not Extra Attack. And if they're TWF, that's rolled into their Multiattack, not relying on bonus actions. In fact, very few NPC builds use bonus actions for anything (except possibly BA spells).

So really, NPC-build creatures have way simpler action economy, on purpose.

[JNAProductions]

So if I already have PCs built and have the cognitive models to play them ready, we can agree that I have no reason whatsoever to use non-PC statblocks, right? Since the only reason is DM simplicity, which is not a thing if you enjoy crafting PCs.

Yeah, seems reasonable to me. Assuming the glass-cannon nature of PC classes as foes is something your players are cool with.

[Telwar]

In our Eberron Saltmarsh game, we got ambushed by a party of Emerald Claw undead lead by a warlock, who vomited forth his two spells as Evard's Horrid Tentacles on a cluster of the party and then spammed eldritch blasts.

He did an admirable job controlling my wizard until I could get out and find cover from the crossbow-volleying skeletons.

[Willie the Duck]

OK so that is about 5 or 6 DMs.
When did each of these DMs start gaming? For a huge swath of them, the 'enemy of spellcasting persuasion' trope may have been mentally filled by magic userwizard and cleric since long before Warlocks were a glimmer in WotC's eye.

[KorvinStarmast]

When did each of these DMs start gaming? For a huge swath of them, the 'enemy of spellcasting persuasion' trope may have been mentally filled by magic userwizard and cleric since long before Warlocks were a glimmer in WotC's eye.
I am one of those whose default is magic user/evil high priest as bad guys; I have used a warlock NPC out of Volo's (per my early response) because I have learned to love my warlock PCs.
My two faves are Celestial and Archfey, I really want to play a genie warlock but there is only so much time in life

[quinron]

So if I already have PCs built and have the cognitive models to play them ready, we can agree that I have no reason whatsoever to use non-PC statblocks, right? Since the only reason is DM simplicity, which is not a thing if you enjoy crafting PCs.


Yeah, seems reasonable to me. Assuming the glass-cannon nature of PC classes as foes is something your players are cool with.

XP/CR balancing against PC level is also fiddly, especially with casters - you'll notice that monsters explicitly listed as being X-level spellcasters (mages, druids, acolytes, etc.) almost never have that level match their CR, and both the direction the CR skews and the degree to which it skews can vary widely depending on what spells and features they get, e.g., the transmuter and war priest in VGtM are both 9th-level spellcasters, but the transmuter is CR 5 while the war priest is CR 9.

Of course, since it seems more and more DMs are eschewing XP progression entirely, this might not even matter...

[HappyDaze]

Warlocks, with their SR casting and Invocations shenanigans, make great antagonists. If you're fighting one, he probably already lost.

The way D&D combats go, if you're fighting anything, it has probably already lost (or else the campaign is about to end).

[Tanarii]

The tricky part is finding out how to keep him alive without railroading the players.

The way D&D combats go, if you're fighting anything, it has probably already lost (or else the campaign is about to end).Agreed. Players usually win and kill or capture everything, or TPK. Without changing the rules up to allow fleeing, thats not usually an option for either side.

The idea of a 'recurring' villian that eacapes and plagues the party hasnt worked well since WotC took over D&D. And it wasnt all that great before that. You need specific magic items / spells to make it work, or a non-human/demihuman/humanoid BBEG with specific and fast movement modes the PCs cant match at their current level.



If I had to hazard a guess, mechanically speaking, I'd say that warlocks are less useful to a dungeon master since they have more limited spell slots and fill the gaps with consistent attack rolls. There are plenty of creatures in the MM who can put out good damage, fewer with the kind of controlling power that spellcasters bring to the table. If you are going to have an NPC (enemy) spellcaster, better to use one that utilizes the power of spellcasting closer to its maximum potential.
For a monster spellcaster 2-3 big spells is all theyre usually going to get anyway. The bad guys with those huge Spellcasting-style slots really just are giving flexibility to which spells they'll cast, not how many. And warlocks get flexibility from known spells.

Whats suprising is so many MM casters are spellcasting-style slots as opposed to some lower number. Those huge numbers of slots and spells add unneeded complexity and usually are a waste of DM time / cognitive power.

[Eldariel]

For a monster spellcaster 2-3 big spells is all theyre usually going to get anyway. The bad guys with those huge Spellcasting-style slots really just are giving flexibility to which spells they'll cast, not how many. And warlocks get flexibility from known spells.

Whats suprising is so many MM casters are spellcasting-style slots as opposed to some lower number. Those huge numbers of slots and spells add unneeded complexity and usually are a waste of DM time / cognitive power.

Well, a bunch of all day spells (few Animate Deads, Mage Armor, See Invisibility, Seeming, etc.) and one spell + one reaction each round does add up to a reasonable number (6+prep in the typically cited 3 turn format) so at the very least, the slots aren't ALWAYS useless.

[HappyDaze]

Whats suprising is so many MM casters are spellcasting-style slots as opposed to some lower number. Those huge numbers of slots and spells add unneeded complexity and usually are a waste of DM time / cognitive power.
It's surprising to me that so many PC classes use spellcasting-style clots as opposed to Pact Magic-like casting. Those huge numbers of slots and spells add unneeded complexity and usually are a waste of player time / cognitive power.

Yes, I do wish most casters were built like Warlocks (including invocations) although I would hope that they had more variety so they don't all revolve around one super-pumped cantrip for most of their capabilities.

[Tanarii]

It's surprising to me that so many PC classes use spellcasting-style clots as opposed to Pact Magic-like casting. Those huge numbers of slots and spells add unneeded complexity and usually are a waste of player time / cognitive power.
The difference is if a warlock PC casts out slots in one battle, they probably need to face a second with no slots.

Monsters have an average of roughly 3 rounds and done in one battle. No SR or LR to renew.

PC face an average of roughly 6 rounds per SR.

[DwarfFighter]

Then it sounds like you should ask your DM why you never faced Warlocks. If they're that open about what the NPCs are aside from personal tastes I can't see any reason for this absence.

Indeed. Check with your GM why he is marginalizing the Warlock NPCs.

-DF

[Pex]

In a cynical answer, how original of me, a DM may not want to use a warlock because he doesn't want the players to know the class/capabilities of the bad guy. As soon as a bad guy casts Eldritch Blast or Hellish Rebuke, the player knows "everything". The players don't necessarily know truly everything what the bad guy can do (invocations, other spells, abilities), but that they know he's a warlock ruins the mystery and that's a bother. The odd thing is these DMs don't care if the players know a bad guy is a cleric. Spiritual Weapon and Inflict Wounds a plenty, the my turn DM laugh when the bad guy casts Spirit Guardians. Maybe evil clerics are a stereotype of the game. It might be because the warlock can cast at most two non-Cantrip spells. The players will count. Once done the bad guy warlock is no longer considered a major threat that battle. That's only conjecture though.

[DwarfFighter]

OP's GM seems to go out of their way to describe NPCs as "level 1 kobold sorcerers", ref earlier post. I don't think "keep the players guessing" is part of the plan. :)

[MaxWilson]

Agreed. Players usually win and kill or capture everything, or TPK. Without changing the rules up to allow fleeing, thats not usually an option for either side.

The idea of a 'recurring' villian that eacapes and plagues the party hasnt worked well since WotC took over D&D. And it wasnt all that great before that. You need specific magic items / spells to make it work, or a non-human/demihuman/humanoid BBEG with specific and fast movement modes the PCs cant match at their current level.

I'm not so sure that's true.

In the Play By Post game I've had running for the past few weeks, the players are currently fighting what is basically an Iron Golem (reduced AC, boosted speed, higher intelligence, old-school magic immunities). After five rounds of combat (foreshadowed by weeks of real-world hype) from a protected position, they've forced it into a tactical withdrawal of sorts, and half the players are talking about running away instead of finishing it off, while others basically worry that it may become a recurring, Terminator-like villain if they do, showing up at inconvenient times to kill them.

My point is that I didn't plan for this guy to become a recurring villain, and I didn't really do anything special with him. I basically just:

(1) hyped his reputation in advance via an NPC wizard mentor figure who's scared to death of golems (because he knows his magic doesn't work on them), and

(2) gave the players and the golem a bunch of deep options for counterplay and counter-counterplay and counter-counter-counterplay and waited for the players to take advantage of it.

They have a safe place where the golem won't go, but it has four sources of fire damage to heal with while Dodging if they do. They can Dispel those sources, but it can shut the door so that they have to reopen the door to get line of sight on the sources.

Shutting the door is apparently enough to create a potentially-recurring villain.

This is an AC 18 bad guy who's been down no more than 50ish HP of damage at any point (magic immunity helps), so nobody tell me that an AC 21ish Eldritch Knight or Hexblade with Shield couldn't do the same thing. You don't need hundreds of HP to be a good villain, you just need to have the ability to force players into counterplay mode at least a little bit.

[Tanarii]

Sounds like what you're describing is a villain that the players can't kill, but also can't pursue the PCs once the players realize that and have their PCs run away. That's pretty niche, at least until mobility enhancing Magic comes into play on the PC side.

OTOH enemies too powerful to kill but that won't for reasons of their own choose to pursue PCs that run would be a nice DM option to keep in their back pocket. In terms of PC survivability in a sandbox environment.

But villains don't tend to get that luxury. IMX most PCs are more likely to pursue than let an enemy flee and "bring back reinforcements". A trait a nasty DM can use run them into traps or ambushes. :smallamused:

[Thunderous Mojo]

Agreed. Players usually win and kill or capture everything, or TPK. Without changing the rules up to allow fleeing, thats not usually an option for either side.

The idea of a 'recurring' villian that eacapes and plagues the party hasnt worked well since WotC took over D&D. And it wasnt all that great before that. You need specific magic items / spells to make it work, or a non-human/demihuman/humanoid BBEG with specific and fast movement modes the PCs cant match at their current level.

Hmm...I can't say the above quotation matches my experience of the last 24 years. To paraphrase Martin Scorsese's Departed:

There are always people that a ruled "un-hitable" by the powers that be.
There are always people, the party could easily kill, but the ramifications of such an act could be politically disastrous.

Liches, Ghosts, Vampires, Devils, Demons as well as Arch Devils and Demon Princes all are difficult creatures to permanently destroy.

[Rafaelfras]

I never had a problem using PC rules for my NPCs

Of course if there is an NPC on MM or Vollo that is satisfying for what i want I will use it just because it is faster. But in the last 2 adventures at my table I had to put some work into.
I prefer using PC rules and simply ignore class specific abilities that are not important for the encounter, I dont have to think about most of the skills, Out of combat powers (or even the ones i dont intend to use during the encounter).

I did a Battle master/ ranger bounty hunter, a shadown monk, a death domain cleric, a warlock/fighter/rogue (2w) all of them 15th level characters. 2 lvl 20 characters, an eldritch knight and a blade singer. All the 15 lvls where full fleshed out characters so they gave me some work to do, the blade singer on the other hand I just wanted to do a uber wizard with 30 CA so all i needed was 20 Int, 20 Dex, A black robe of the archmage and shield and foresight spells. On the next adventure I needed 8 wizards 1 for each school all lvl 15-16, so yet again i hade to put some work on 7 of then and put the diviner powers on a lich.
My players like this verisimilitude, for them it breaks immersion seeing NPCs not following the same rules that they are bound to. The npcs on the MM and Vollo are close enough but those wizards with d8 hit die always get some complains hehe.

For those of you who would like to have a better and quick method of doing NPCs https://fastcharacter.com/ is a wonderful tool.

As for the OP, unless the enemy spell caster use hex+ eldritch blast on you, it will be very hard to know if you are facing a warlock or not

[MaxWilson]

Sounds like what you're describing is a villain that the players can't kill, but also can't pursue the PCs once the players realize that and have their PCs run away. That's pretty niche, at least until mobility enhancing Magic comes into play on the PC side.

You could ask them but I don't think they think they can't kill it. The players probably could kill it in my opinion (it's technically only a Medium fight by DMG standards) and they have Dimension Door to potentially run away. But they don't necessarily NEED to kill it because they already have the treasure, and they want to save resources for a different threat (or maybe use this monster against the other threat). And I already gave them the XP for this monster when it first showed up, so they will gain nothing from killing it except removing a potential threat.

And Longstrider comes online at level 1 BTW, as do plain old mounts. Mobility enhancing magic is cheap and readily available.

Anyway, my point is just that recurring villains aren't something you have to go out of your way to arrange. They can fall out of scenarios naturally based on player choices, whenever an enemy survives a combat. This could just as easily be a flying enemy like a young black dragon or an Efreet, vs. a party on the other side of a chasm, if that party doesn't have strong ranged attacks. The incoming enemy force that the PCs are saving resources for also has the potential to become recurring villains, if they learn the PCs' identity and if the PCs don't ambush them or otherwise deal with them during the adventure.

Opportunities for recurring villains are common IME, and it's up to the players to shut them down, but they won't shut down every one.

[ff7hero]

You could ask them but I don't think they think they can't kill it. The players probably could kill it in my opinion (it's technically only a Medium fight by DMG standards) and they have Dimension Door to potentially run away. But they don't necessarily NEED to kill it because they already have the treasure, and they want to save resources for a different threat (or maybe use this monster against the other threat). And I already gave them the XP for this monster when it first showed up, so they will gain nothing from killing it except removing a potential threat.

And Longstrider comes online at level 1 BTW, as do plain old mounts. Mobility enhancing magic is cheap and readily available.

Anyway, my point is just that recurring villains aren't something you have to go out of your way to arrange. They can fall out of scenarios naturally based on player choices, whenever an enemy survives a combat. This could just as easily be a flying enemy like a young black dragon or an Efreet, vs. a party on the other side of a chasm, if that party doesn't have strong ranged attacks. The incoming enemy force that the PCs are saving resources for also has the potential to become recurring villains, if they learn the PCs' identity and if the PCs don't ambush them or otherwise deal with them during the adventure.

Opportunities for recurring villains are common IME, and it's up to the players to shut them down, but they won't shut down every one.

FWIW, I think we can kill it. The puzzle right now is "how few resources can we kill it with?"

[MaxWilson]

FWIW, I think we can kill it. The puzzle right now is "how few resources can we kill it with?"

I am also very interested to find out the answer to this question, albeit I'm also disappointed that my attempt to tempt you guys into killing it with a Ridiculously Powerful Artifact has been (wisely?) ignored.

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyway, my point is just that recurring villains aren't something you have to go out of your way to arrange. They can fall out of scenarios naturally based on player choices, whenever an enemy survives a combat. 3 Cases in point:
1. my saltmarsh campaign. While I was waiting for the roll20 adventure pack to go live, we had a few sessions to run a small homebrewed adventure where a cult fanatic was using a novel magic item to experiment with undead creation. She ended up fleeing with one HP out a side passageway, and the party monk made the snap decision to not pursue since the monk was at very low HP the fight was still in progress and three children (prisoners) were still chained to a wall.

The party met that same evil cult lady at level 5, but she was a subordinate to a more powerful NPC and had a knight (NPC) lover backing her play.

2. In one of the Candlekeep adventures, the Bad Guy has a teleport scroll on his person that he's to use if the fight goes against him. (The PCs don't know that). He'll for darned sure come after them with new allies if he does escape. We'll see how initiative / the battle works out next week - had to stop mid fight last night, RL intruded again.

3. A Tier 3 campaign. Our party defeated a lich. We were tickled pink (and got some decent loot). But we have not gotten our hands on the phylactery. We then ran into her again. And she got away. (teleport, IIRC).
Grrrr.
She's going to be, I think, a royal pain in the neck until we can find / possess / destroy the phylactery, and then go after her a last time and close her out.

Or, our lives become Groundhog Day. :smallconfused:

[MaxWilson]

3. A Tier 3 campaign. Our party defeated a lich. We were tickled pink (and got some decent loot). But we have not gotten our hands on the phylactery. We then ran into her again. And she got away. (teleport, IIRC).
Grrrr.
She's going to be, I think, a royal pain in the neck until we can find / possess / destroy the phylactery, and then go after her a last time and close her out.

Or, our lives become Groundhog Day. :smallconfused:

Yeah, and finding the phylactery of any competent lich is the hardest part, since they're probably going to have it Sequestered to be invisible and immune to divination magic. ("When you cast the spell and touch the target, it becomes invisible and can't be targeted by divination spells or perceived through scrying sensors created by divination spells.") Your best bet is to disable the lich in a way that doesn't actually kill them, e.g. beat them unconscious with nonlethal damage and then petrify them with Flesh To Stone.

If you do want to actually find the phylactery, and the phylactery is protected by Sequester, you could try killing the lich and then spending the next 10 days constantly attempting to Scry the lich (maybe a warlock would be helpful here), because the lich will reform near the phylactery and you might get lucky and catch them before they Teleport away or exit the Demiplane or whatever they do right after reforming their body. That won't show you the phylactery itself but it will at least give you a location to search with truesight or just set on fire/nuke from orbit.

Killing a lich should be nontrivial if the lich has any brains at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Your best bet is to disable the lich in a way that doesn't actually kill them, e.g. beat them unconscious with nonlethal damage and then petrify them with Flesh To Stone. But are they flesh? (Maybe get your pet basilisk to gaze at it for a while, or have your pet Gorgon breath on it for a while).

If you do want to actually find the phylactery, and the phylactery is protected by Sequester, you could try killing the lich and then spending the next 10 days constantly attempting to Scry the lich (maybe a warlock would be helpful here), because the lich will reform near the phylactery and you might get lucky and catch them before they Teleport away or exit the Demiplane or whatever they do right after reforming their body. That won't show you the phylactery itself but it will at least give you a location to search with truesight or just set on fire/nuke from orbit. That's not a bad idea, I'll float that past the party and see if any of them salute it.
Killing a lich should be nontrivial if the lich has any brains at all. Yeah, and most of them do. :smallcool:

[Cyclops08]

UPDATE:
I never did talk to my DM, BUT: we ran into not one, but FOUR Kuo Toa warlocks as part of a bigger monster party. They were just tossing out 1D10s at first level, but it was a start.
No eldritch blast came close to me (and I bought a Brooch of shielding just for this reason: Resistance to Force). Still the fish-locks lasted longer than the big bad.

The line-in-the-sand has been crossed. The Locks are cannon now in this world.

[Sigreid]

I don't use them because I don't really like the class. Don't use sorcerers for the same reason. For me, it's really that simple.

[KorvinStarmast]

The line-in-the-sand has been crossed. The Locks are cannon now in this world. Canon? Eldritch cannon is from the Artificer. :smallbiggrin: (fun with typos).

[Joe the Rat]

While I typically grab and tweak a closest-fit statblock, or occasionally just build from scratch based on need, I have put together PC-as-NPC antagonists before.

The only fight-based Warlock case was Kyle, Puncher of The Walls of Reality. Straight up eldritch spamlock (Warlock/Sorcerer/Fighter with War primary), all sorcery points going to fuel Quickened Eldritch Blast. He was proof of concept for "Fake Monk"

[Saelethil]

I haven’t used one in my campaign yet but I probably will before too long. I have used a Wizard, a Druid, and most recently, 3 Paladins.
I was part of a campaign that ran into a Warlock a few years ago. We were level 3, lost in the woods, and stumbled across one that had subjugated a hoard of goblins. It was really rough.

[Sigreid]

It's surprising to me that so many PC classes use spellcasting-style clots as opposed to Pact Magic-like casting. Those huge numbers of slots and spells add unneeded complexity and usually are a waste of player time / cognitive power.

Yes, I do wish most casters were built like Warlocks (including invocations) although I would hope that they had more variety so they don't all revolve around one super-pumped cantrip for most of their capabilities.

The PCs with lots of spell slots and spells are for people like me that dig that.