Ultimate Optimizer's Multiclassing Guide

[PeteNutButter]

This seems very misguided to me. Quickened EB, at mid-levels, is 2 SP for a chance at ~20 damage (plus control). Against moderate AC call it about 14 damage per quickened EB unless you're exploiting Spike Growth or similar. A flamethrower turret is 9 damage, save for half, to everyone in the AoE, which can easily be ~30 damage, save for half. Because it's at will you can do things a sorlock could not afford such as Dodging to buy extra time with which to hose enemies down with your at-will AoE.

At anything except the lowest levels, not having a turret to kill is a disadvantage for the sorlock, because enemies who waste time attacking an AC 18 high-HP turret which you can recreate for almost nothing are attacking the wrong target.

IMO single target damage is generally far superior than a spread out a small amount of damage. All those enemies are still doing full damage when they are down 4-5 hp. Weak AoEs can be borderline useless. (Not to mention the DM headache of tracking 4 damage on these 4 mooks.) If you are actually in a situation where the AoE is productive, the enemies can easily afford the attack to swat the turret down. While it is good to save an attack on a PC, at that point you're spending a spell slot to negate an attack, which is sort of like a shield spell that uses more than your reaction.

The real problem is the action economy. Between hex and moving it, most warlocks don't even have the time to do much more with their bonus action, especially hexblades. Sorlocks tend to only use the quickened EB on an enemy that is really tough, tough enough that it didn't die after your hex, EB, full team turn, EB again... Basically its a NOVA tactic. I know many people dislike NOVA tactics or builds, but they are quite potent. (There is a reason smite builds are so prevalent.) Buying time in D&D, IMO, is almost never a good strategy. You might not spend resources, but the rest of the party probably will. It is in PCs best interest to end combats as quickly as possible with as few resources spent as possible.

All that being said, if the two classes both used the same stat (int or cha), than the whole thing would be a lot more comparable, and would naturally be high rated.

Ahhhhhh that makes sense. I was considering optimization against base classes, not other multiclasses, now your rating makes more sense to me. While deffinently not gold by any means I personally rated it at least average in terms of a multiclass. But you're right about sorlock doing it easier/better.

On your note of playing a more supportive character. A celestial warlock/ alchemist can finally do something more beneficial with their bonus action, and use the cantrip scaling to do at least okay damage, and the short rest slots giving you a few more resilience potions every short rest. The idea probably works better with divine soul sorcerer but that's something at least. How would you build it?

I was thinking celestial warlock is well. Probably a half elf or maybe a variant human for Inspiring Leader. Those free THP go a long way into making you a strong support. Pump cha with ASIs so you can still spam EB for offense. With 3 or more warlock levels you'd grab the petvantge and maybe the max self healing invocation. Although you probably want to put most levels in artificer, so you can hand out items and stuff.

You're not overpowered or anything, just a candy shop of goodies for the team: advantages, THP, healing, a few items, etc..

[MaxWilson]

IMO single target damage is generally far superior than a spread out a small amount of damage. All those enemies are still doing full damage when they are down 4-5 hp. Weak AoEs can be borderline useless. (Not to mention the DM headache of tracking 4 damage on these 4 mooks.) If you are actually in a situation where the AoE is productive, the enemies can easily afford the attack to swat the turret down. While it is good to save an attack on a PC, at that point you're spending a spell slot to negate an attack, which is sort of like a shield spell that uses more than your reaction.

Math matters here--it's more like six to nine mook attacks. AC 18 and between 15 and 90 HP depending on level... typical mooks have +3 to +4 to hit, for about 5 damage, will take nine attacks to inflict about 15 HP of damage. Either the turret is eating multiple rounds of enemy attacks, making it better than Shield, or there are a while bunch of enemies, making your AoE much, much more effective than Quickened Eldritch Blast. If there are nine gnolls, my turret will only last about one round, but hitting six gnolls for 2d8 (9) each, save for half, at third level, means doing 4x as much damage as the equivalent sorlock relying on Shield + EB + QEB, while spending only half as many resources.

By the time QEB is actually worth using, the turret will have even more HP and attacking it will be an even worse idea.

(And frankly, at low levels it's stronger to use the temp HP turret than the flamethrower anyway, IME. But that requires whole-party analysis and is out of scope for this discussion.)

The real problem is the action economy. Between hex and moving it, most warlocks don't even have the time to do much more with their bonus action, especially hexblades. Sorlocks tend to only use the quickened EB on an enemy that is really tough, tough enough that it didn't die after your hex, EB, full team turn, EB again... Basically its a NOVA tactic. I know many people dislike NOVA tactics or builds, but they are quite potent. (There is a reason smite builds are so prevalent.) Buying time in D&D, IMO, is almost never a good strategy. You might not spend resources, but the rest of the party probably will. It is in PCs best interest to end combats as quickly as possible with as few resources spent as possible.

I agree. I said upthread that the Artillerist Warlock will have action economy problems if he tries to use Hex and Force Ballista together. We see eye to eye there.

I strongly disagree about buying time not being valuable, but only because you need to buy time for the whole party and not just yourself. I agree that buying time for yourself is useless. I also agree that having a nova capability for emergencies (when survival is in doubt, cost-effectiveness stops mattering) but using it should be rare.

A nice delaying tactic or spell like Web that buys the whole party another round of free ranged attacks is worth more than one additional Hexed Eldritch Blast from one character, under most circumstances. The times novaing is worth it have mostly to do with preventing an enemy glass cannon from novaing itself, e.g. a sorlock would be better than almost anybody at taking down a Flameskull before it can finish unloading all of its Magic Missiles and Fireballs.

Under similar circumstances, an Artificer/Warlock relying on Force Ballista should ignore Hex entirely and just blast away, hoping to make up for the MADness with sheer volume of fire (and an enhanced focus for +1 to hit).

[KyleG]

I'm curious how you think a trickery cleric with either a echo knight dip or moon druid dip would look.

[samcifer]

You didn't add Artificer to the warlock multi-class rundown.

[Jacobo1226]

The real problem is the action economy. Between hex and moving it, most warlocks don't even have the time to do much more with their bonus action, especially hexblades. Sorlocks tend to only use the quickened EB on an enemy that is really tough, tough enough that it didn't die after your hex, EB, full team turn, EB again... Basically its a NOVA tactic. I know many people dislike NOVA tactics or builds, but they are quite potent. (There is a reason smite builds are so prevalent.) Buying time in D&D, IMO, is almost never a good strategy. You might not spend resources, but the rest of the party probably will. It is in PCs best interest to end combats as quickly as possible with as few resources spent as possible.

I love the toolbox idea you presented at the end but this part slightly confused me, what's the difference between those and a ranger using hunters mark and twf ? Is the logic the same about that not being worth it? If not what's the difference between the two?

[PeteNutButter]

Math matters here--it's more like six to nine mook attacks. AC 18 and between 15 and 90 HP depending on level... typical mooks have +3 to +4 to hit, for about 5 damage, will take nine attacks to inflict about 15 HP of damage. Either the turret is eating multiple rounds of enemy attacks, making it better than Shield, or there are a while bunch of enemies, making your AoE much, much more effective than Quickened Eldritch Blast. If there are nine gnolls, my turret will only last about one round, but hitting six gnolls for 2d8 (9) each, save for half, at third level, means doing 4x as much damage as the equivalent sorlock relying on Shield + EB + QEB, while spending only half as many resources.

By the time QEB is actually worth using, the turret will have even more HP and attacking it will be an even worse idea.

(And frankly, at low levels it's stronger to use the temp HP turret than the flamethrower anyway, IME. But that requires whole-party analysis and is out of scope for this discussion.)

The problem is EB scales on total level and the cannon only artificer levels. Depending on level spread that can be a massive difference. I generally look at tier 2 to low tier 3 as a guideline for where most campaigns end up. If you went just 2 levels in warlock by level 10 your turret will have a decent 40 HP, and you'd have either 8 levels invested in artificer with crap int (since you put all your ASIs and points in cha) or have terrible EB with crap cha. Conversely you'd have mostly warlock levels with a turret with a pitiful 15-20 HP.

Perhaps I'm losing sight of the ball here, but I can't see what this build can do that makes either of these sacrifices worth it.

I agree. I said upthread that the Artillerist Warlock will have action economy problems if he tries to use Hex and Force Ballista together. We see eye to eye there.

I strongly disagree about buying time not being valuable, but only because you need to buy time for the whole party and not just yourself. I agree that buying time for yourself is useless. I also agree that having a nova capability for emergencies (when survival is in doubt, cost-effectiveness stops mattering) but using it should be rare.

A nice delaying tactic or spell like Web that buys the whole party another round of free ranged attacks is worth more than one additional Hexed Eldritch Blast from one character, under most circumstances. The times novaing is worth it have mostly to do with preventing an enemy glass cannon from novaing itself, e.g. a sorlock would be better than almost anybody at taking down a Flameskull before it can finish unloading all of its Magic Missiles and Fireballs.

Under similar circumstances, an Artificer/Warlock relying on Force Ballista should ignore Hex entirely and just blast away, hoping to make up for the MADness with sheer volume of fire (and an enhanced focus for +1 to hit).

I'd agree on Web, but to me it isn't as much a delay as altering the battlefield to your advantage (presuming the party has better ranged attacks than the webbed enemies). It's a simple calculation. If you can spend x resource and alter the math of the battlefield from PCs doing a 2:1 ratio of DPR to the enemy to the PCs doing a 3:1 DPR than that's a good buy.

Can dodging and turret spamming achieve the same math? Yeah, potentially. That's why I say things like generally, etc. I use lots of qualifying terms, because there is a time for everything. I've definitely taken similar actions in game. The turret is nice in that it's a bonus action "attack" that doesn't require a main action attack, like spiritual weapon. That's also why I try not to crap on the multiclasses that I rate not so high. I myself enjoy wacky and out of the box combos, but I still rate them lower because I intend the guide to be useful for people optimizing, especially if they don't have the knee deep knowledge of the mechanics like many of us on this forum have.

I'm curious how you think a trickery cleric with either a echo knight dip or moon druid dip would look.

I'm not a big fan of moon druid dips on casters especially, because it shuts down your primary method of doing things for some lower level attacks. As levels scale you can end up losing more HP with a low AC as the carry over damage smacks into your real HP. In odd cases you might find you could have been avoiding hits altogether with higher out-of-form AC, thus making your bear form actually decrease your survivability.

As for the echo knight, well I'm not super up on the mechanics, but it's definitely a potential meme build. "Look how many of me there are!" hehe Fighter dips are fine for any caster, especially when taken at first level. Trickery cleric suffers from poor proficiencies anyways. I'd consider 5-6 fighter for a more martial build.

You didn't add Artificer to the warlock multi-class rundown.

Thanks. I'll see if I can add it.

I love the toolbox idea you presented at the end but this part slightly confused me, what's the difference between those and a ranger using hunters mark and twf ? Is the logic the same about that not being worth it? If not what's the difference between the two?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question or what is confusing. Sadly, TWF is rarely optimal in most cases. The ranger attempting twf + hunter's mark suffers from the same struggles as he sorlock hex EB, but suffers even further in much much weaker primary damage. 2d6+stat is pathetic compared to the 1d10+1d6+stat multiple times per action and bonus action that EB can put out.

For an example assume an 18 dex dual wielding short swords. Each time you cast or move hunter's mark you lose 4 damage (1d6+4 offhand damage vs 1d6 hunter's mark). In order for the transaction to be worth it, the creature has to then survive until you land two more hits, effectively the end of your next turn, or later if you miss with any attacks. If you fail to land those two more hits you've effectively lost DPR. After level 5 it gets better with extra attack, but in practice you may find yourself not using the offhand much at all.

Spoiler: TWF vs Alternatives

Show

Comparing the total damage of TWF and Rapier + Shield with their respective fighting styles at level 5, you get the following (ignoring misses since they have same chance to hit):

TWF:
Round 1: 1d6+4 x2 + 2d6 (hunter's mark). 22 Average
Round 2: 1d6+4 x3 + 3d6 (hunter's mark). 33 Average
Assuming a 50:50 split between turns where you move hunter's mark and turns where you need not you get an average of 27.5 DPR.

S&B:
Nearly Every Round: 1d8+6 x2 +2d6 (hunter's mark). 28 Average DPR... all while having a shield equipped for more AC.

It's a simple demonstration (with a lot of ignored variables) but it shows the struggle of attempting to use TWF with hex or hunter's mark. You'd get far better damage results using PAM if you want to employ bonus action (since it front loads the damage), which can also be combined with GWM for giant amounts of flat damage.

[Jacobo1226]

I'm not sure I fully understand your question or what is confusing. Sadly, TWF is rarely optimal in most cases. The ranger attempting twf + hunter's mark suffers from the same struggles as he sorlock hex EB, but suffers even further in much much weaker primary damage. 2d6+stat is pathetic compared to the 1d10+1d6+stat multiple times per action and bonus action that EB can put out.

For an example assume an 18 dex dual wielding short swords. Each time you cast or move hunter's mark you lose 4 damage (1d6+4 offhand damage vs 1d6 hunter's mark). In order for the transaction to be worth it, the creature has to then survive until you land two more hits, effectively the end of your next turn, or later if you miss with any attacks. If you fail to land those two more hits you've effectively lost DPR. After level 5 it gets better with extra attack, but in practice you may find yourself not using the offhand much at all.

Spoiler: TWF vs Alternatives

Show

Comparing the total damage of TWF and Rapier + Shield with their respective fighting styles at level 5, you get the following (ignoring misses since they have same chance to hit):

TWF:
Round 1: 1d6+4 x2 + 2d6 (hunter's mark). 22 Average
Round 2: 1d6+4 x3 + 3d6 (hunter's mark). 33 Average
Assuming a 50:50 split between turns where you move hunter's mark and turns where you need not you get an average of 27.5 DPR.

S&B:
Nearly Every Round: 1d8+6 x2 +2d6 (hunter's mark). 28 Average DPR... all while having a shield equipped for more AC.

It's a simple demonstration (with a lot of ignored variables) but it shows the struggle of attempting to use TWF with hex or hunter's mark. You'd get far better damage results using PAM if you want to employ bonus action (since it front loads the damage), which can also be combined with GWM for giant amounts of flat damage.

That answers it for me, I was asking if it was worth it for a ranger to use twf if we followed the logic you presented in the previous post. because every single nonlongbow ranger I've ever seen uses it (even without knowing who dridst is), especially in the case of optimization, I'm always told that twf is the way to go for a ranger or you're suboptimal. That's why your opinion on it not being worth it surprised me, but your math does check out. I wonder why so many people tell me otherwise?

[MaxWilson]

The problem is EB scales on total level and the cannon only artificer levels. Depending on level spread that can be a massive difference. I generally look at tier 2 to low tier 3 as a guideline for where most campaigns end up. If you went just 2 levels in warlock by level 10 your turret will have a decent 40 HP, and you'd have either 8 levels invested in artificer with crap int (since you put all your ASIs and points in cha) or have terrible EB with crap cha. Conversely you'd have mostly warlock levels with a turret with a pitiful 15-20 HP.

Perhaps I'm losing sight of the ball here, but I can't see what this build can do that makes either of these sacrifices worth it.

Okay, here's a reminder what the ball is here:

Obligatory weigh in regarding Artificer/Warlock:

This is a neat concept, and would be tricky due to MADness. Ultimately, I have a hard time calling something optimal when another multiclass combination can already can the same thing (or better) at less cost. If we are looking at great ways to make EB users do something with their bonus actions, sadly the artificer/warlock can never compete with a sorlock (I know blech). There is no turret to kill, and while it may use slightly more resources (SP) in a protracted fight, it'll far outpace that turret damage by doing another quickened EB, all while being SAD.

While the artificer has some solid bonus action output, I think it's not quite the thing that justifies a MAD build, at least not while other more competitive choices are available. The best bits in artificer are things that no other class can manage, such as being Int SAD and abusing the items, etc. Could still be fun to play though.

EDIT: If I had to play an artificer/lock, I'd probably see how I can play a more supporty character. I'm not entirely sure of the details, but that's what jumps in my mind.

So let's compare a 10th level sorlock, per your suggestion above, with a 10th level Artillerist/Warlock, in a mob fight against a dozen Orogs so we can see if the sorlock's bonus action really is better in that mob fight than the Artillerist's. (Sorlock is definitely better in a one-on-one fight, that isn't in dispute.)

Let's say for the sake of argument that the SAD Sorlock has Cha 20 whereas the Artillerist/Warlock has only Int 16, Cha 18.

Sorlock's EB is +9 to hit for d10+5 damage, x4 for for EB + Quickened EB. Against AC 18, he's doing an average of 26.30 damage per round (5% crits and 55% regular hits).

Artillerist 8/Warlock 2's EB is +8 to hit for d10+4 damage, x2, for a mere 11.00 damage per round with his action. But his bonus action makes up for it. If he hits 5 Orogs with his flamethrower, their +1 Dex save vs. his DC 15 means that 70% of the fail the save and 30% make the save for half damage, which means on average they'll take 85% of full damage. 5 x 2d8 x 0.85 = 38.25 damage on average. Total damage is 49.25.

Result: the sorcerer spends 2 sorcery points per round to do 26.30 damage. The Artillerist spends nothing to do 49.25 damage per round.

If the Orogs choose to focus on the turret, they can inflict 40 HP for every 8 attacks they make. This costs the Artillerist 1 action (therefore 11 damage) and 1 spell slot to repair. If the same number of attacks get focused on the sorlock, then assuming the sorlock has AC 19 from half-plate + shield + dex 14, he takes 36.2 HP of damage on average, which he can reduce to 15.2 by spending a spell slot on Shield.

Result: the Artificer is still doing more damage than the sorcerer, and the sorcerer is either taking massive damage or spending as many spell slots as the Artificer and still taking 15.2 more damage per round. This is why focusing weapon attacks on the turret is a mistake.

Can the Sorlock do other things? Yes, he could Polymorph into a T-rex or run away, but that's out of scope "if we are looking at great ways to make EB users do something with their bonus actions". The point here is that Quickened EB is good at one thing: expensive single target damage, and Artillerists are good at a different thing: cheap AoE damage. (And support, because temp HP cannons rock.)

[PeteNutButter]

So let's compare a 10th level sorlock, per your suggestion above, with a 10th level Artillerist/Warlock, in a mob fight against a dozen Orogs so we can see if the sorlock's bonus action really is better in that mob fight than the Artillerist's. (Sorlock is definitely better in a one-on-one fight, that isn't in dispute.)

Let's say for the sake of argument that the SAD Sorlock has Cha 20 whereas the Artillerist/Warlock has only Int 16, Cha 18.

Sorlock's EB is +9 to hit for d10+5 damage, x4 for for EB + Quickened EB. Against AC 18, he's doing an average of 26.30 damage per round (5% crits and 55% regular hits).

Artillerist 8/Warlock 2's EB is +8 to hit for d10+4 damage, x2, for a mere 11.00 damage per round with his action. But his bonus action makes up for it. If he hits 5 Orogs with his flamethrower, their +1 Dex save vs. his DC 15 means that 70% of the fail the save and 30% make the save for half damage, which means on average they'll take 85% of full damage. 5 x 2d8 x 0.85 = 38.25 damage on average. Total damage is 49.25.

Result: the sorcerer spends 2 sorcery points per round to do 26.30 damage. The Artillerist spends nothing to do 49.25 damage per round.

If the Orogs choose to focus on the turret, they can inflict 40 HP for every 8 attacks they make. This costs the Artillerist 1 action (therefore 11 damage) and 1 spell slot to repair. If the same number of attacks get focused on the sorlock, then assuming the sorlock has AC 19 from half-plate + shield + dex 14, he takes 36.2 HP of damage on average, which he can reduce to 15.2 by spending a spell slot on Shield.

Result: the Artificer is still doing more damage than the sorcerer, and the sorcerer is either taking massive damage or spending as many spell slots as the Artificer and still taking 15.2 more damage per round. This is why focusing weapon attacks on the turret is a mistake.

Can the Sorlock do other things? Yes, he could Polymorph into a T-rex or run away, but that's out of scope "if we are looking at great ways to make EB users do something with their bonus actions". The point here is that Quickened EB is good at one thing: expensive single target damage, and Artillerists are good at a different thing: cheap AoE damage. (And support, because temp HP cannons rock.)

Except the sorlock would just cast fireball.
The sorlock wouldn't be casting quickened EB except on enemies that he already has hex.... but he wouldn't even cast EB or hex in this combat, at least not until the enemies are almost wiped out.

You've so narrowly defined the goal that it's missing the larger picture. The character as a whole is significantly weaker. 16 & 18 int and cha is generous. What does that leave dex and con? You can squeeze 14s with the right races, but no variant human. What's his spell toolkit like? Significantly weaker.

There is literally no better time to cast fireball than against a pack of orogs. Yes its using a resource, compared to the turret, but its an optimal use of that resource which will save the whole party a big chunk of hp, especially if he can catch them out before they get intermingled with the PCs for maximum AoE effect.

Even in your narrow example, the damage comparison isn't that illustrative. It'll take the artificer an average of 6 rounds before his AoE can kill a single Orog. Are creatures with a 12 Int and 11 Wis really going to stay in a formation that you can hit 5 of them each round? I seriously doubt it. They'll be surrounding PCs in no time. All while the sorlock can single-handedly plink one off every other round.

The big tragedy of this comparison is it that since the turret us doing nearly 80% of the work, the warlock dip is actually hurting the artificer.

What if the artificer instead never dipped warlock? He'd have 20 int (not to mention better con & dex), enhanced arcane focus (+11 to hit), and arcane firearm making his firebolt (2d10+1d8) hit 65% of the time and crit 5% of the time averaging 11.625 damage against the orogs, better than the EB. But then his AoE DC would be two points higher making 80% fail for an average of 90% damage efficiency on his turret sprays which also do an additional 1d8 damage(explosive cannon) bringing it to 60.75 DPR for a total of 72.375 DPR. That's is significantly more. All while having more higher level slots, better stats, and being closer to higher level items and all the goodies one gets when they avoid multiclassing. This artillerist will be flying around with those winged boots he made himself at level 10, and spraying his flame thrower from above, making him far more likely to land the AoEs he'd want.

In summary, IMO if you want good bonus action AoE that is near at will, play an artillerist. If you want good cantrip damage play a warlock, but mixing the two doesn't create anything that is better than the sum of its parts (at least not in the at will damage department).

[Jacobo1226]

Would you say then that an almost universally better version would just be 5 in artilerist the rest in evoker as far as just having nice at will damage? Or 2 war wizard the rest artilerist etc.?

[MaxWilson]

Except the sorlock would just cast fireball.

So we agree--Quickened Eldritch Blast isn't actually very good except in single-target scenarios.

And a 9th+ level Artillerist can flamethrower (3d8) + detonate (3d8) for about the same damage as Fireball, but at the cost of a 1st level slot instead of 3rd.

Yes, Sorlocks have more spell slots than Artificers do. But Artificers have more spells (access to the entire spell list including niche spells that a Sorcerer can't afford to learn, like Fabricate), and are arguably better at support especially at low levels (again, Protection turret is fantastic).

They're both good in different ways.

What if the artificer instead never dipped warlock? He'd have 20 int (not to mention better con & dex), enhanced arcane focus (+11 to hit), and arcane firearm making his firebolt (2d10+1d8) hit 65% of the time and crit 5% of the time averaging 11.625 damage against the orogs, better than the EB.

This is wrong. If we're assuming Enhanced Arcane Focus for the Artificer, Fire Bolt is 11.63 and EB is 2x +9 to hit for 1d10+4 per hit = is 11.95 (plus Repelling). Agonizing Repelling EB is still better than Fire Bolt. Next level EB's advantage will increase because it will also get a +2 focus and 3 beams, vs only +1d10 for Fire Bolt: EB will do 21.30 (plus more Repelling) and Fire Bolt on the pure Int 20 Artificer will do 15.75.

The big tragedy of this comparison is it that since the turret us doing nearly 80% of the work, the warlock dip is actually hurting the artificer.

IN THAT SCENARIO. The warlock dip is buying you versatility and control, so that you're good both against mobs and against single targets. Otherwise you have a strong bonus action as an Artillerist and only a weak cantrip for a standard action. The warlock dip also buys you short-rest spell slots to have your turret up more often.

It's more optimal w/rt for versatility and high average effectiveness across all situations, instead of optimal w/rt peak performance in ideal scenarios.

Obligatory weigh in regarding Artificer/Warlock:

This is a neat concept, and would be tricky due to MADness. Ultimately, I have a hard time calling something optimal when another multiclass combination can already can the same thing (or better) at less cost. If we are looking at great ways to make EB users do something with their bonus actions, sadly the artificer/warlock can never compete with a sorlock (I know blech). There is no turret to kill, and while it may use slightly more resources (SP) in a protracted fight, it'll far outpace that turret damage by doing another quickened EB, all while being SAD.

You've so narrowly defined the goal that it's missing the larger picture. The character as a whole is significantly weaker. 16 & 18 int and cha is generous. What does that leave dex and con? You can squeeze 14s with the right races, but no variant human. What's his spell toolkit like? Significantly weaker.

My goal is not to show that Artillerist/warlock is better than sorlock in all ways and in all situations. Of course it's not. My goal is to provide good discussion so people can make informed tradeoffs while playing the game.

If someone wants to play an Artillerist, telling them to play a sorlock instead is not very helpful.

At this point I'm not even trying to persuade you to change the colors in your guide, I just want it on the record that it isn't true that "the artificer/warlock can never compete with a sorlock". Now it's on the record so I'm done.

[Trustypeaches]

Side Note:

Echo Knight + Rogue may be a better multiclass than Battlemaster / Rogue now. With Sentinel, the Echo is going to give you a much more reliable way of getting sneak attack off-your-turn IMO than the limited uses of Riposte.

[ZorroGames]

. Snip At this point I'm not even trying to persuade you to change the colors in your guide, I just want it on the record that it isn't true that "the artificer/warlock can never compete with a sorlock". Now it's on the record so I'm done.

Hardly on the record. Buried so deeply in this thread some if not many players are going to read the guide and skip the message traffic. So, no, it really is not on the record that your position contradicts the words most people are going to read.

[MaxWilson]

Hardly on the record. Buried so deeply in this thread some if not many players are going to read the guide and skip the message traffic. So, no, it really is not on the record that your position contradicts the words most people are going to read.

Don't care as much about the guide as the people following the thread, some of whom have shown an interest in about warlock/artificer.

[Dork_Forge]

So we agree--Quickened Eldritch Blast isn't actually very good except in single-target scenarios.

And a 9th+ level Artillerist can flamethrower (3d8) + detonate (3d8) for about the same damage as Fireball, but at the cost of a 1st level slot instead of 3rd.

Yes, Sorlocks have more spell slots than Artificers do. But Artificers have more spells (access to the entire spell list including niche spells that a Sorcerer can't afford to learn, like Fabricate), and are arguably better at support especially at low levels (again, Protection turret is fantastic).

Both of those things are a bit misleading in different ways: You're not accounting for needing the turrets to be set up to begin with and then you place yourself at a disadvantage if the detonation doesn't end the encounter, Fireball requires an action with no set up. You're counting a whole class/subclass combo against just a casting of Fireball, a Draconic Sorcerer with a fire ancestry would push that damage higher for example and a Sorlock in general would have a bonus action available for quickening. The 1st vs 3rd comparison is also wonky, to a caster of that level a 3rd slot is worth probably about as much as a 1st slot is to a half caster.

This is something that came up in a thread not that long ago, the UA variants I think? Having a prepared list isn't the same as 'having more spells', it allows you more flexability yes, but a multiclass will usually yield more spells actually known/prepared at any time. Both have their benefits, neither is an all out winner and in a discussion about combat effectiveness (which, let's be honest this is really) spells like fabricate are moot.

I wouldn't call an Arcane Firearm backed cantrip (especially since it's likely backed by Enhanced Arcane Focus) a weak action personally, maybe in comparison to EB with invocations backing it, but that's a higher investment that AF cantrips.

Both builds certainly have their merit, and I am admittedly biased against dipping Warlock on an Artificer (I'd dip Wizard of Figher first), I just wanted all sides clear here.

[iTreeby]

Side Note:

Echo Knight + Rogue may be a better multiclass than Battlemaster / Rogue now. With Sentinel, the Echo is going to give you a much more reliable way of getting sneak attack off-your-turn IMO than the limited uses of Riposte.

Don't forget the limited extra attacks it grants at lvl3. The extra attack doesn't even take an action it's just limited to CONMOD times a day, still a big deal

[MaxWilson]

Both of those things are a bit misleading in different ways: You're not accounting for needing the turrets to be set up to begin with and then you place yourself at a disadvantage if the detonation doesn't end the encounter, Fireball requires an action with no set up.

You're being "misleading" in turn by neglecting to count the benefits you get from the turret before it explodes: attacks they absorb on their HP, damage they deal in other encounters, movement options they deny, all before they actually detonate. (And I've said repeatedly that the Protection turret is actually better than the Flamethrower turret--you can give all the PCs a bunch of free temp HP and *still* detonate it as a mini-Fireball if you need to.) But it's not about being deliberately misleading, is it? It's about the two things having different strengths and weaknesses, and not being able to mention all of those strengths and weaknesses again every time you respond to every single post on this thread.

Yes, comparing apples and oranges is complicated. No, I'm not misleading you nor are you misleading me.

The 1st vs 3rd comparison is also wonky, to a caster of that level a 3rd slot is worth probably about as much as a 1st slot is to a half caster.

Then your warlock 2 dip is giving you the equivalent of two 3rd level spells every short rest, in addition to the invocation benefits and extra spells known!

This is something that came up in a thread not that long ago, the UA variants I think? Having a prepared list isn't the same as 'having more spells', it allows you more flexability yes, but a multiclass will usually yield more spells actually known/prepared at any time. Both have their benefits, neither is an all out winner and in a discussion about combat effectiveness (which, let's be honest this is really) spells like fabricate are moot.

I wouldn't call an Arcane Firearm backed cantrip (especially since it's likely backed by Enhanced Arcane Focus) a weak action personally, maybe in comparison to EB with invocations backing it, but that's a higher investment that AF cantrips.

Both builds certainly have their merit, and I am admittedly biased against dipping Warlock on an Artificer (I'd dip Wizard of Figher first), I just wanted all sides clear here.

Agreed. Both have their advantages. I probably value versatility more than you do--I would totally prep Spider Climb occasionally as an Artificer in a cave crawl, but never as a sorcerer.

I'm not limiting myself to a combat discussion either. If all you care about is combat then the Artificer loses IMO about 30% of its appeal relative to wizards. Part of the appeal of Artificer is getting to mess around with stuff like e.g. Magic Mouth, Water Breathing, Spider Climb, Continual Flame, Snare without it permanently costing you the ability to acquire better spells including spells that *are* relevant to combat. A 5th level wizard knows 14 spells; a 5th level Artificer knows about 34. That is a not-inconsiderable perk.

[PeteNutButter]

So we agree--Quickened Eldritch Blast isn't actually very good except in single-target scenarios.

Strange way of putting it, but sure. "Isn't actually good except in single target scenarios." You make it sound as if fighting a tough enemy (potentially with a few mooks) is the rare occurrence as opposed to the more frequent scenario. If that's how your tables play, YMMV. I mean, if you're using EB to AoE, you're probably doing something wrong.

*snips*
IN THAT SCENARIO. The warlock dip is buying you versatility and control, so that you're good both against mobs and against single targets. Otherwise you have a strong bonus action as an Artillerist and only a weak cantrip for a standard action. The warlock dip also buys you short-rest spell slots to have your turret up more often.

It's more optimal w/rt for versatility and high average effectiveness across all situations, instead of optimal w/rt peak performance in ideal scenarios.

My goal is not to show that Artillerist/warlock is better than sorlock in all ways and in all situations. Of course it's not. My goal is to provide good discussion so people can make informed tradeoffs while playing the game.

*snips*
Agreed. Both have their advantages. I probably value versatility more than you do--I would totally prep Spider Climb occasionally as an Artificer in a cave crawl, but never as a sorcerer.

I'm not limiting myself to a combat discussion either. If all you care about is combat then the Artificer loses IMO about 30% of its appeal relative to wizards. Part of the appeal of Artificer is getting to mess around with stuff like e.g. Magic Mouth, Water Breathing, Spider Climb, Continual Flame, Snare without it permanently costing you the ability to acquire better spells including spells that *are* relevant to combat. A 5th level wizard knows 14 spells; a 5th level Artificer knows about 34. That is a not-inconsiderable perk.

I've said both at beginning of the guide and throughout the thread my stance that is versatility alone is no reason to multiclass.A solo or duo campaign could use a multiclass for versatility, but if you're playing with 4-6 players, the chances are that any multiclass for versatility's sake alone will just gimp your build in an attempt to do something that someone else in the party can do far better.

Good reasons to multiclass are to make you better at your core role and action, or to increase survivability, such as the common fighter 1 dips. Versatility is usually a tangential benefit.

In contrast, if I were to place versatility higher in value, I'd have a hard time rating any multiclass as low rated. As every multiclass inherently adds versatility. IMO, doing two things poorly, is rarely as good as doing one well. No, I'm not arguing for one-trick ponies, just that a significant sacrifice in your core role for an edge case of versatility is generally not worth it.

*snips*
If someone wants to play an Artillerist, telling them to play a sorlock instead is not very helpful.

This does not characterize the situation. If it were a separate thread where a player was intent on playing this MC for RP reasons, then yeah, it'd be a jerk thing to say "play x instead." Instead, it was brought up as a cool mechanical combo in a thread about optimizing MC combinations. If someone were to point out that if you stack wizard and paladin you get more slots to smite with in the same thread, it'd be silly if the conversation didn't inevitably at least mention paladin/sorcerer (or other cha caster).

Would you say then that an almost universally better version would just be 5 in artilerist the rest in evoker as far as just having nice at will damage? Or 2 war wizard the rest artilerist etc.?

Maybe. The problem still stands that you get big bumps for your cannon at art levels 9 and 15. It'd largely depend on anticipated campaign length. Personally if I were building a character to make the most out of the cannon, I'd just go artillerist at least to 15.

[Pimplup]

Really love this thread, wanted to make a couple suggestions:

Fighter with a Sorcerer dip isn't nearly as good as Paladin/Sorc, but at high levels a quickened GFB/BB can give some significant bonus damage. That combined with Shield (and a 1-use advantage if you pick Wild Magic) gives the Fighter several good benefits.

Monk / Spores Druid is another good combination thanks to SADness and the extra d6 damage per melee attack (kinda like Hunter's Mark but it gives temp HP as well).

[AgenderArcee]

I feel like the Paladin/Barbarian assessment misses that you can use Reckless Attack and Danger Sense while wearing heavy armor. Heavy armor and healing mitigates the risk created by Reckless Attack somewhat, while Danger Sense helps shore up a major Paladin weakness in the form of Dex saves. A two-level dip can provide some significant benefits without the need for Rage at all, though of course it pushes back Paladin progression. Still, feels closer to blue than black IMHO. I feel like this could make for a fun and thematic crit-fishing build when combined with Oath of Glory (new name for Heroism). Would probably wait until after Paladin 6 to go into Barbarian - a Half-Orc Paladin getting in touch with their Orcish roots perhaps? Definitely best limited to two levels, since Path features all rely on Rage. If you're worried about spell slots, a couple levels of a full-caster will make up for what was lost in the Barb dip.

[Arkhios]

I feel like the Paladin/Barbarian assessment misses that you can use Reckless Attack and Danger Sense while wearing heavy armor. Heavy armor and healing mitigates the risk created by Reckless Attack somewhat, while Danger Sense helps shore up a major Paladin weakness in the form of Dex saves. A two-level dip can provide some significant benefits without the need for Rage at all, though of course it pushes back Paladin progression. Still, feels closer to blue than black IMHO. I feel like this could make for a fun and thematic crit-fishing build when combined with Oath of Glory (new name for Heroism). Would probably wait until after Paladin 6 to go into Barbarian - a Half-Orc Paladin getting in touch with their Orcish roots perhaps? Definitely best limited to two levels, since Path features all rely on Rage. If you're worried about spell slots, a couple levels of a full-caster will make up for what was lost in the Barb dip.

What, are you saying there's more to being a barbarian than just the ability to Rage!? Blasphemy!

[Dork_Forge]

I feel like the Paladin/Barbarian assessment misses that you can use Reckless Attack and Danger Sense while wearing heavy armor. Heavy armor and healing mitigates the risk created by Reckless Attack somewhat, while Danger Sense helps shore up a major Paladin weakness in the form of Dex saves. A two-level dip can provide some significant benefits without the need for Rage at all, though of course it pushes back Paladin progression. Still, feels closer to blue than black IMHO. I feel like this could make for a fun and thematic crit-fishing build when combined with Oath of Glory (new name for Heroism). Would probably wait until after Paladin 6 to go into Barbarian - a Half-Orc Paladin getting in touch with their Orcish roots perhaps? Definitely best limited to two levels, since Path features all rely on Rage. If you're worried about spell slots, a couple levels of a full-caster will make up for what was lost in the Barb dip.

Is heavy armor really worth giving up rage though? You're only one AC higher than medium armor (which can be fixed with Medium Armor Master or patched with the Defense style) and for that you're giving up resistance to BPS, advantage on Str if you want to grapple and smidge of bonus damage.

IMO if you're going to dip two levels in Barbarian and not use Rage you're better off just sticking straight Paladin.

[AgenderArcee]

Is heavy armor really worth giving up rage though? You're only one AC higher than medium armor (which can be fixed with Medium Armor Master or patched with the Defense style) and for that you're giving up resistance to BPS, advantage on Str if you want to grapple and smidge of bonus damage.

IMO if you're going to dip two levels in Barbarian and not use Rage you're better off just sticking straight Paladin.

The issue is more the MADness of needing Str, Dex, Con and Cha as a medium armor-wearing Barbadin. With heavy armor you can dump Dex.

[Dork_Forge]

The issue is more the MADness of needing Str, Dex, Con and Cha as a medium armor-wearing Barbadin. With heavy armor you can dump Dex.

You could dump Dex, but with how much Dex affects in 5e it's never really advisable. You'll end up with a pretty good tank and damage dealer but you'll be unable to get into position to draw aggro of potential take an opponenet down before they can act if you have a negative Initiative modifier. You could safely dump Int if necessary without any real negative consequences and realistically most people won't need a Cha higher than 14 anyway (auras are nice, but with a 2 Barbarian dip you won't be getting it until 8th level whereas a dumped Dex will affect your entire career).

[MaxWilson]

You could dump Dex, but with how much Dex affects in 5e it's never really advisable. You'll end up with a pretty good tank and damage dealer but you'll be unable to get into position to draw aggro of potential take an opponenet down before they can act if you have a negative Initiative modifier. You could safely dump Int if necessary without any real negative consequences and realistically most people won't need a Cha higher than 14 anyway (auras are nice, but with a 2 Barbarian dip you won't be getting it until 8th level whereas a dumped Dex will affect your entire career).

You're greatly exaggerating how much influence Dex has over initiative, relative to the d20 roll.

Also, the importance of winning initiative varies with the campaign style and group composition. If squishies can do things like hang back in dangerous situations (or lay caltrops or Hide before combat starts), it's less necessary to win initiative on round 1 in order to protect them. Only some DMs run campaigns where all fights involve monsters jumping you unexpectedly from less than 30' away. Furthermore, you may not even have any squishies in your group. If everyone has decent AC (19+) the urgency of acting first goes way down.

[Dork_Forge]

You're greatly exaggerating how much influence Dex has over initiative, relative to the d20 roll.

Also, the importance of winning initiative varies with the campaign style and group composition. If squishies can do things like hang back in dangerous situations (or lay caltrops or Hide before combat starts), it's less necessary to win initiative on round 1 in order to protect them. Only some DMs run campaigns where all fights involve monsters jumping you unexpectedly from less than 30' away. Furthermore, you may not even have any squishies in your group. If everyone has decent AC (19+) the urgency of acting first goes way down.

Dumping Dex means not only are you relying solely on the d20, but you're going to have to roll higher than normal to compensate for that -1, if you don't consider a 3 point swing significant in a bounded accuracy system then what DO you consider significant?

You may not have any squishies in your group, but honestly what's the chances that you entire party will have a 19+ AC? They can also hang in the back, but if they actually do something to the enemy on their turn then they have more reason to rush past your and go for them. You don't need to be jumped for things to go badly or need to be within 30' (between a lot of monsters having superior movement speed to PCs and ranged attacks). How likely is someone but a Rogue to actually carry caltrops nevermind set them up before combat? Why isn't this barrier of caltrops negatively affecting your melee combatants? Flying monsters? You can give specific ways around it and there will always be as many if not more specific instances where those counters won't be applicable or will be countered, but are you honestly going to argue that having a better initiative (or even just not a negative mod) will always be better for your group overall. You aren't just competing with your party to win initiative, you're also competing with the enemy.

[MaxWilson]

Dumping Dex means not only are you relying solely on the d20, but you're going to have to roll higher than normal to compensate for that -1, if you don't consider a 3 point swing significant in a bounded accuracy system then what DO you consider significant?

You may not have any squishies in your group, but honestly what's the chances that you entire party will have a 19+ AC? They can also hang in the back, but if they actually do something to the enemy on their turn then they have more reason to rush past your and go for them. You don't need to be jumped for things to go badly or need to be within 30' (between a lot of monsters having superior movement speed to PCs and ranged attacks). How likely is someone but a Rogue to actually carry caltrops nevermind set them up before combat? Why isn't this barrier of caltrops negatively affecting your melee combatants? Flying monsters? You can give specific ways around it and there will always be as many if not more specific instances where those counters won't be applicable or will be countered, but are you honestly going to argue that having a better initiative (or even just not a negative mod) will always be better for your group overall. You aren't just competing with your party to win initiative, you're also competing with the enemy.

You made a positive claim: that dumping Dex is a bad idea because you'll be unable to win initiative. This just isn't true, and no matter what your Dex is, sometimes you win initiative and sometimes you lose. The d20 is extremely swingy.

What's better than relying on luck? Good intel and tactics. (Not that players always use good tactics, and most of mine hardly use intel at all.) Good tactics means doing what is appropriate for the situation.

[Dork_Forge]

You made a positive claim: that dumping Dex is a bad idea because you'll be unable to win initiative. This just isn't true, and no matter what your Dex is, sometimes you win initiative and sometimes you lose. The d20 is extremely swingy.

What's better than relying on luck? Good intel and tactics. (Not that players always use good tactics, and most of mine hardly use intel at all.) Good tactics means doing what is appropriate for the situation.

Then let me rephrase it, I didn't mean it as an absolute, but you're a lot less likely to win initiative when you're subtracting one form the d20 and everyone else is likely adding to it.

Tactics are great, you can also mitigate your reliance on luck with positive modifiers, it is a core part of the game design after all. Initiative aside the character will probably never succeed a stealth roll, still doesn't have the best of odds with Dex saves and a good chunk of the skills list looks dire to them. For what? Being a bit less MAD when you're already running a multiclass with 4 prereqs? It isn't even a difficult stat array to satisfy:

HElf point buy can give you: 16 14 14 8 10 14 at level 1, your primary stat is on par with most other optimised builds, your Con is respectable and the only thing you had to dump was Int. In this specific instance you still have the option of picking up EA at somepoint to crit fish if that tickles your fancy.

So you end up with: The ability to actually rage (better at-will DPS, resistance, advantage on Str checks), better initiative, better Dex saves, better Dex skills, better naked AC if caught out of armor and the option to not even have disadvantage on stealth (breast plate or half plate (with MAM). Where's the benefit here of dumping Dex? You can even still wear heavy armor if you want to with that stat array (though I'm not seeing why you'd prioritise 1AC over all of the other benefits, especially resistance and Dex saves). Dumping Dex when you don't absolutely have to make very little sense and has a not trivial amount of drawbacks.

[Arkhios]

Then let me rephrase it, I didn't mean it as an absolute, but you're a lot less likely to win initiative when you're subtracting one form the d20 and everyone else is likely adding to it.

A question, if I may. Why is it important that everyone "win" initiative? The fact is that not everyone can win initiative. There's always only one who goes first. Even if multiple roll resultss were the same (and whether your modifier was positive or negative, it doesn't matter in regards to the order).

[Dork_Forge]

A question, if I may. Why is it important that everyone "win" initiative? The fact is that not everyone can win initiative. There's always only one who goes first. Even if multiple roll resultss were the same (and whether your modifier was positive or negative, it doesn't matter in regards to the order).

I don't consider winning initiative as going first necessarily, I consider winning going before the enemies at hand. You can be last in your party but above every Goblin, I'd consider that a win.