You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature.
War Caster
Reactive Spell. When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Spell Sniper
Casting in Melee. Being within 5 feet of an enemy doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your attack rolls with spells.
Make a ranged spell attack against one creature or object in range. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 Force damage.
two beams at level 5, three beams at level 11, and four beams at level 17
so, a melee character can do an opportunity attack at level 1 if an enemy moves away.
with warcaster, a spell casting character can do a spell based opportunity-attack-adjacent attack at level 4+.
And because it isn't an ACTUAL "Opportunity Attack", warcaster isn't thwarted by features like Speedy, that force all OpportunityAttacks to be rolled at disadvantage.
casting a spell attack at melee distances is normally at disadvantage, so the caster would likely go with some sort of SavingThrow based spell, like Sleep or Command or whatever.
But add in Spell Sniper and you get a bunch of new benefits, plus you can do Spell Attack rolls while in melee range of enemies.
Granted, its two feats, but it makes for a rocking warlock to cast EB as that Opportunity-Spell-Attack
Now:
Sharpshooter
General Feat (Prerequisite: Level 4+, Dexterity 13+)
You gain the following benefits.
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Firing in Melee. Being within 5 feet of an enemy doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your attack rolls with Ranged weapons.
Long Shots. Attacking at long range doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your attack rolls with Ranged weapons.
sor-lock: 2 level dip into warlock for EldritchBlast cantrip and AgonizingBlast invocation. All other levels in sorcerer for quickened metamagic.
so, while a warlock can work their way up to four zero cost ranged beam attacks on their action, and with one quicken metamagic point from sorcerer to double the number of beams in that turn to EIGHT attack rolls, warlock can also take two feats and use EldritchBlast as an opportunity-spell-attack to throw in ANOTHER FOUR eldritch blast beams? And because they are NOT an "Opportunity Attack" they are never affected by feats like Speedy that would otherwise force eldritch blast attacks to be rolled at disadvantage???
On the other hand, a ranger/longbow is strictly limited to 2 attacks maximum during their action, there is absolutely NO WAY to ever get more than 2 attacks on their action, and they have absolutely ZERO access to using there bow even once on some sort of ranged-weapon-opportunity-attack?
Not to mention, rangers are half casters with a slow spell progression and a "meh" spell list. Mostly access to HuntersMark and speak with animals. Warlocks are weird casters with limited slots, but they refresh on a short rest, and they access higher spell levels as fast as a full caster, and get some really powerful spells. And besides, you will probably do a 2 level warlock dip and take the rest as a full-spellcasting sorcerer for all the metamagic points and awesome spell slots.
And because it isn't an ACTUAL "Opportunity Attack", warcaster isn't thwarted by features like Speedy, that force all OpportunityAttacks to be rolled at disadvantage.
This part is something you'd probably want to check with the DM about if you actually try to play this character. It's technically correct under the Rules As Written, but it seems very much outside the spirit of the rules, and a lot of DMs might not care for it.
Probably. (I could see debate on the question of speedy vs. reactive spells, but it's both a reasonable interpretation and also unimportant.)
Also, this really isn't a rules question; it would probably best be discussed on tips and tactics.
Is sor-lock just the best ranger subclass ever?
No. It's arguably a slight upgrade on straight sorcerer for single-target damage, but if you're just sitting there eldritch blasting every turn, you're not playing your character to anything like its fullest extent.
(And spending two feats to get OA eldritch blast seems like a poor choice to me, because you aren't a melee caster, and if somebody gets into melee range of you, they're not going to leave.)
It's only comparable to a ranger if you consider a ranger to be solely a ranged-damage-dealer. That's a category where full casters, particularly arcane ones, have always excelled, so it's not surprising if you can out-damage a martial that way.
But even there, you're comparing a caster who's burning through resources to a ranger who isn't. The ranger has hunter's mark and attack-enhancing spells. They may not be able to take an OA with a longbow, but they can swap it out for a melee weapon if they're in melee.
But that's not the only, or even primary, purpose of a ranger. They're effective melee fighters, they have skill expertise, they have specialized utility magic, they have their actual subclass features, such as an entire second combatant. Sorcerers are better sorcerers than rangers are; they're not better rangers.
The rules very specifically went out of their way to say it is something entirely different than an opportunity attack.
it says "take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack."
But also, there's the fact that the sorlock at level 17 is doing 4 eb's per action, or 8 with one metamagic point (and dozens and dozens of metamagic points). vesus a ranger at level 17 is still only doing ... TWO. And cant even use longbow on an opportunity attack...
A level 20 ranger's capstone feat is that their hunters mark die goes from a d6 to d10. yay. a level 18 sorcerer/level2 warlock has access to the WISH spell.
does anyone actually read these rules and go, hey, maybe this is... off... just a bit....
The rules very specifically went out of their way to say it is something entirely different than an opportunity attack.
it says "take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack."
As I said, it's a reasonable interpretation. The potential debate gets into the details of how replacement abilities interact with restrictions placed upon the ability being replaced, and that is entirely uncharted territory. (But it is the second instance of it that I've noticed here in recent weeks, and I bet a lot of people have inconsistent beliefs on the two. But I don't feel like discussing it here.)
But also, there's the fact that the sorlock at level 17 is doing 4 eb's per action, or 8 with one metamagic point (and dozens and dozens of metamagic points). vesus a ranger at level 17 is still only doing ... TWO. And cant even use longbow on an opportunity attack...
A level 20 ranger's capstone feat is that their hunters mark die goes from a d6 to d10. yay. a level 18 sorcerer/level2 warlock has access to the WISH spell.
does anyone actually read these rules and go, hey, maybe this is... off... just a bit....
The martial-caster divide has been a real issue in every D&D except 4e. It's probably less in 5e than in any of the others, but it's an intractable problem without changing the game's fundamental paradigms.
Nonetheless, sorcerers, multiclassed or not, are not better rangers than rangers because they can outperform the ranger on one particular measurement.
Also, your sorcerer-warlock is outperforming fighters, paladins, single-classed warlocks, and indeed every pure caster on single-target ranged damage. Does that mean it's a better cleric than clerics are? No. It means that you found a multiclass combo that can specialize in one particular thing, and is likely the best at that thing if it does. Somebody's going to be that for any measurement.
(And spending two feats to get OA eldritch blast seems like a poor choice to me, because you aren't a melee caster, and if somebody gets into melee range of you, they're not going to leave.)
Not only that, but because of the two levels of Warlock, you likely aren't getting the feats until level 10. And since Eldritch Blast generates multiple attacks you may see some DMs blocking it as a War Caster candidate even if you target the same target with every beam. (Jeremy Crawford has said that Green-flame Blade works fine, but that never made it into an official Sage Advice so it is RAI at best.)
And because it isn't an ACTUAL "Opportunity Attack", warcaster isn't thwarted by features like Speedy, that force all OpportunityAttacks to be rolled at disadvantage.
This part is something you'd probably want to check with the DM about if you actually try to play this character. It's technically correct under the Rules As Written, but it seems very much outside the spirit of the rules, and a lot of DMs might not care for it.
I'm pretty sure that this was made clear in the 2014 rules that the Warcaster reaction was not an opportunity attack and thus the character wouldn't get to use any benefits you would normally get on an OA and thus it would seem to follow that the target wouldn't get any benefits it would normally get against an OA either. I'm not sure if there is any change to that in the 2024 rules set though.
The part I'm wondering about though is if Eldritch Blast is valid for Warcaster at all? It wasn't allowable to be twinned under the 2014 rules but can't remember if Warcaster handled it differently.
I mean, the idea works but it's rather situational. A build that works only on a multiclass of two traditionally ranged caster classes, with a heavy reliance of going in melee and hoping they leave your reach.
A warlock with Armour of Agathys (5th level) & Hellish Rebuke (5th level) can deal an average of 58 (25 + 6d10) damage is already much more flexible compared to the requirement of two different feats, which are half the feats you can ever get due to the multiclass locking out the 5th one.
What makes a Sor-Lock better than the Ranger in a way that the warlock and sorcerer isn’t? A 9th level spell is already in your grasp, just use that and the variety of powerful spells a sorcerer has.
And because it isn't an ACTUAL "Opportunity Attack", warcaster isn't thwarted by features like Speedy, that force all OpportunityAttacks to be rolled at disadvantage.
This part is something you'd probably want to check with the DM about if you actually try to play this character. It's technically correct under the Rules As Written, but it seems very much outside the spirit of the rules, and a lot of DMs might not care for it.
I'm pretty sure that this was made clear in the 2014 rules that the Warcaster reaction was not an opportunity attack and thus the character wouldn't get to use any benefits you would normally get on an OA and thus it would seem to follow that the target wouldn't get any benefits it would normally get against an OA either. I'm not sure if there is any change to that in the 2024 rules set though.
The part I'm wondering about though is if Eldritch Blast is valid for Warcaster at all? It wasn't allowable to be twinned under the 2014 rules but can't remember if Warcaster handled it differently.
I shared this in a thread related to the War Caster feat:
I think that the distinction between War Caster and Twinned Spell in this regard is that War Caster says the spell “must target only that creature”, while the old Twinned Spell says the spell “must be incapable of targeting more than one creature”.
That’s a narrow line, but it does suggest that with War Caster it doesn’t matter how many things the spell CAN target, just how many you actually target with it.
I think that the distinction between War Caster and Twinned Spell in this regard is that War Caster says the spell “must target only that creature”, while the old Twinned Spell says the spell “must be incapable of targeting more than one creature”.
That’s a narrow line, but it does suggest that with War Caster it doesn’t matter how many things the spell CAN target, just how many you actually target with it.
Sorlocks aren't new. You can find threads here discussing the concept from pretty much when D&D Beyond was created. The basic aspect has always been Agonizing Blast+Eldritch Blast + quicken if you want to cast it twice in a turn.
It has also been a popular war caster option for opportunity attacks. The only part of the OPs post I haven't noted before would be the interaction with Speedy. However, since PVP is relatively uncommon and NPCs tend to have stat blocks with abilities and not feats, it is generally not a big deal.
I'll also add that it isn't the highest possible single target damage build if that is what you are going for ... I think that position might go to the warlock-bard with similar shenanigans but substituting Conjure Minor Elementals for a second casting using quicken (There could be other builds with more attacks that would do even better). Prior to the nerf, CME used to be an extra 2d8 damage/attack at level 4 increasing by an extra 2d8/level upcast (this has been reduced to 1d8). A 7th level CME would do an extra 8d8 damage on each attack that hit (12d8 with a 9th level slot) this has been reduced to 5d8 with a 7th level slot or 7d8 with a 9th. This gets added to each beam of Agonizing blast if cast within 15' of the target.
Combine with Foresight for advantage on each attack roll and defensive benefits. The damage is ridiculous ... and this is primarily a bard character that has a great deal of other utility both in and out of combat (skill expertise for one). Bards get CME via magical secrets.
In addition, the 2024 iteration of the Rod of the Pact Keeper allows you to regain one spell slot - any spell slot - the text does not limit it to warlock spell slots so a warlock multiclass can use it to restore a 9th level spell slot (RAW).
Of course these builds use resources but it just gets back to the issue that in tier 4 (and to some extent tier 3), spellcasters are generally much better at damage of any kind than most melee characters unless the adventure has been able to drain/mitigate/reduce the resources of the spellcasters.
Anyway, I think that pretty much all of the points the OP makes are correct. You can use Agonizing/Eldritch blast as a spell with War Caster as long as the beams all target the creature that is triggering the opportunity attack.
"The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature."
The main down side to both the sorlock and the bardlock is that their primary spell progression is delayed by 2 or 3 levels - depending on whether you want 2 or 3 levels of warlock (the archetype options provide some significant benefits that might be worth the extra level at some point). As you play through tier 1 and 2 this has a significant impact on how the character will play. At level 5 for example, the sorlock will have agonizing blast but only 2nd level spells and no feats compared to a wizard with a higher casting stat from the feat and 3rd level spells which are game changing. Basically, the sorlock/bardlock character has a focus on single target damage relying on hex + eldritch blast to contribute to combat. At level 7 or 8, the character gets 3rd level spells and will have more options to support the party. In some ways, this is why the bardlock can be more fun to play since they will have decent skills and can be the party "face" until they get some higher level spells to have more combat options available.
(And spending two feats to get OA eldritch blast seems like a poor choice to me, because you aren't a melee caster, and if somebody gets into melee range of you, they're not going to leave.)
Not only that, but because of the two levels of Warlock, you likely aren't getting the feats until level 10. And since Eldritch Blast generates multiple attacks you may see some DMs blocking it as a War Caster candidate even if you target the same target with every beam. (Jeremy Crawford has said that Green-flame Blade works fine, but that never made it into an official Sage Advice so it is RAI at best.)
WHAAAA??? I’ve never heard of this before! I mean, it “sort of” makes sense, but seems like a big reason not to use War Caster on a class that you would think fits it perfectly. I especially like the use of spells with full hands, so when i heard about fighter/warlocks I went all in. Like the level 20 for Rangers, the 20 for Warlocks is also pretty bad, especially when you get a similar ability now at level 2 that basically is just replaced.
Then again, War Caster is kind of the go-to for all magic users, so doing something different might help keep the game more interesting, but I don’t think anyone can really do the Fighter/Warlock combo like the Fighter/Warlock.
Anyway, I think the more important question is whether or not the Sorlock is better than the Ranger. Unfortunately, I think most would agree that since the Monk buff of 2024 Ranger is considered the worst class of the game. As to whether or not you can be a better ranger, if rangers are so bad, I’m not sure you would want to focus on that when you could be a better class bu focusing on what class you are. Just saying.
Then again, War Caster is kind of the go-to for all magic users, so doing something different might help keep the game more interesting, but I don’t think anyone can really do the Fighter/Warlock combo like the Fighter/Warlock.
In my experience, war caster only gets taken by casters who expect to melee. I took it on a pure caster, and it didn't do a lot for me.
Anyway, I think the more important question is whether or not the Sorlock is better than the Ranger.
Better than the ranger at what? The idea presented in this thread -- that if you can out-damage a ranger with a bow, you're inherently a better ranger -- is seriously reductionist.
Unfortunately, I think most would agree that since the Monk buff of 2024 Ranger is considered the worst class of the game.
I doubt you can get majority agreement on any such thing. (But again: worst at what? You can probably work out who's the worst damage-dealer in a specific scenario, but that does not generalize, much less cover all the less-quantifiable features. You'd have to get agreement on what each class's role in the game is, and then evaluate how well each one fulfills their role. I predict 35 pages of thread before the moderators close it with extreme prejudice.)
Anyway, I think the more important question is whether or not the Sorlock is better than the Ranger. Unfortunately, I think most would agree that since the Monk buff of 2024 Ranger is considered the worst class of the game. As to whether or not you can be a better ranger, if rangers are so bad, I’m not sure you would want to focus on that when you could be a better class bu focusing on what class you are. Just saying.
I think this depends on what level of play you are looking at. I've played rangers through tier 2 and they do just fine. Hunter's mark is a decent boost to damage and when combined with two weapon fighting with nick and vex available they have the potential for 3 attacks every round doing 2d6 of damage. They aren't that different from fighter or paladin and have some ok spells to add to the mix. However, further increases in damage pretty much depend on magic items or feats. Short sword of wounding increases the weapon damage to 3d6 for example but requires an attunement slot. The Dual Wielding feat can increase this to four attacks/turn. Basically not that terrible but needs feats and magic items (compared to a sorlock which doesn't really need anything extra though Spell sniper does help).
At higher levels, martials generally fall behind and a ranger is no different. However, I've played tier 4 with other players with characters that are primarily rangers and they seem to have a good time. It isn't the same experience as dropping meteor swarm as a wizard but it is still fun.
The challenging one for me is fighter. They just seem really lackluster through tier 2 with 2 attacks doing d8+stat (if they are using a long sword). 1 short rest action surge doesn't add that much and uses resources ... battle master only has 4 or 5 superiority die to spend though that is also a short rest resource ... and if you play a different archetype you don't get those extra die of damage.Other archetypes like rune knight have some cool options but most are again 1/sr or 1/lr and only add a bit of damage (though some of the effects are exceptionally cool - like redirecting crits to opponents :) ).
A fighter with a great sword can sort of keep up damage wise with a base ranger with hunters mark but then the ranger gets the extra nick attack. (The fighter probably picks up great weapon master though).
Anyway, the only point I am making here is that for at least 1/2 or more of the usual game, up to about level 11 at least, the ranger is a decent choice mechanically and if you want to play a ranger for roleplaying (which is a far more important reason :) ), then the choice is not a bad one.
P.S. I don't know who designs these things but the level 20 ranger "capstone" of ...
"The damage die of your Hunter’s Mark is a d10 rather than a d6."
... seems ludicrous since it increases average damage by 2 points on every hunters mark use. So, if you rank them on the usefulness of level 20 abilities, the ranger might score quite low.
Interesting points about War Caster. Unfortunately, I don’t have much experience with multiple classes, so I am always keen to learn from others.
As far as better, I just mean at D&D victories in general. I wasn’t just referring to damage. …having said that, it is a huge part of it. It’s also worth noting some might just find a class more fun and if that is the priority then they should do that.
I should also note I only take one level of fighter to start in my fighter/warlock build to ensure i don’t fall too far behind and can get my epic boon in the event we make it to level 20. I will say though from what I’ve watched their sheer number of attacks (at least in the late game) combined with multiple action surges seem pretty clutch.
Like I said, I’ll always have more to learn, and if you find it more fun, you should probably play it rather than being miserable playing something you don’t like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Opportunity Attacks
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature.
War Caster
Reactive Spell. When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Spell Sniper
Casting in Melee. Being within 5 feet of an enemy doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your attack rolls with spells.
Eldritch Blast
Evocation Cantrip (Warlock)
Casting Time: Action
Make a ranged spell attack against one creature or object in range. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 Force damage.
two beams at level 5, three beams at level 11, and four beams at level 17
so, a melee character can do an opportunity attack at level 1 if an enemy moves away.
with warcaster, a spell casting character can do a spell based opportunity-attack-adjacent attack at level 4+.
And because it isn't an ACTUAL "Opportunity Attack", warcaster isn't thwarted by features like Speedy, that force all OpportunityAttacks to be rolled at disadvantage.
casting a spell attack at melee distances is normally at disadvantage, so the caster would likely go with some sort of SavingThrow based spell, like Sleep or Command or whatever.
But add in Spell Sniper and you get a bunch of new benefits, plus you can do Spell Attack rolls while in melee range of enemies.
Granted, its two feats, but it makes for a rocking warlock to cast EB as that Opportunity-Spell-Attack
Now:
Sharpshooter
General Feat (Prerequisite: Level 4+, Dexterity 13+)
You gain the following benefits.
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Bypass Cover. Your ranged attacks with weapons ignore Half Cover and Three-Quarters Cover.
Firing in Melee. Being within 5 feet of an enemy doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your attack rolls with Ranged weapons.
Long Shots. Attacking at long range doesn’t impose Disadvantage on your attack rolls with Ranged weapons.
sor-lock: 2 level dip into warlock for EldritchBlast cantrip and AgonizingBlast invocation. All other levels in sorcerer for quickened metamagic.
so, while a warlock can work their way up to four zero cost ranged beam attacks on their action, and with one quicken metamagic point from sorcerer to double the number of beams in that turn to EIGHT attack rolls, warlock can also take two feats and use EldritchBlast as an opportunity-spell-attack to throw in ANOTHER FOUR eldritch blast beams? And because they are NOT an "Opportunity Attack" they are never affected by feats like Speedy that would otherwise force eldritch blast attacks to be rolled at disadvantage???
On the other hand, a ranger/longbow is strictly limited to 2 attacks maximum during their action, there is absolutely NO WAY to ever get more than 2 attacks on their action, and they have absolutely ZERO access to using there bow even once on some sort of ranged-weapon-opportunity-attack?
Not to mention, rangers are half casters with a slow spell progression and a "meh" spell list. Mostly access to HuntersMark and speak with animals.
Warlocks are weird casters with limited slots, but they refresh on a short rest, and they access higher spell levels as fast as a full caster, and get some really powerful spells. And besides, you will probably do a 2 level warlock dip and take the rest as a full-spellcasting sorcerer for all the metamagic points and awesome spell slots.
Did I read all these rules correctly???
Is sor-lock just the best ranger subclass ever?
This part is something you'd probably want to check with the DM about if you actually try to play this character. It's technically correct under the Rules As Written, but it seems very much outside the spirit of the rules, and a lot of DMs might not care for it.
pronouns: he/she/they
Probably. (I could see debate on the question of speedy vs. reactive spells, but it's both a reasonable interpretation and also unimportant.)
Also, this really isn't a rules question; it would probably best be discussed on tips and tactics.
No. It's arguably a slight upgrade on straight sorcerer for single-target damage, but if you're just sitting there eldritch blasting every turn, you're not playing your character to anything like its fullest extent.
(And spending two feats to get OA eldritch blast seems like a poor choice to me, because you aren't a melee caster, and if somebody gets into melee range of you, they're not going to leave.)
It's only comparable to a ranger if you consider a ranger to be solely a ranged-damage-dealer. That's a category where full casters, particularly arcane ones, have always excelled, so it's not surprising if you can out-damage a martial that way.
But even there, you're comparing a caster who's burning through resources to a ranger who isn't. The ranger has hunter's mark and attack-enhancing spells. They may not be able to take an OA with a longbow, but they can swap it out for a melee weapon if they're in melee.
But that's not the only, or even primary, purpose of a ranger. They're effective melee fighters, they have skill expertise, they have specialized utility magic, they have their actual subclass features, such as an entire second combatant. Sorcerers are better sorcerers than rangers are; they're not better rangers.
The rules very specifically went out of their way to say it is something entirely different than an opportunity attack.
it says "take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack."
But also, there's the fact that the sorlock at level 17 is doing 4 eb's per action, or 8 with one metamagic point (and dozens and dozens of metamagic points). vesus a ranger at level 17 is still only doing ... TWO. And cant even use longbow on an opportunity attack...
A level 20 ranger's capstone feat is that their hunters mark die goes from a d6 to d10. yay.
a level 18 sorcerer/level2 warlock has access to the WISH spell.
does anyone actually read these rules and go, hey, maybe this is... off... just a bit....
As I said, it's a reasonable interpretation. The potential debate gets into the details of how replacement abilities interact with restrictions placed upon the ability being replaced, and that is entirely uncharted territory. (But it is the second instance of it that I've noticed here in recent weeks, and I bet a lot of people have inconsistent beliefs on the two. But I don't feel like discussing it here.)
The martial-caster divide has been a real issue in every D&D except 4e. It's probably less in 5e than in any of the others, but it's an intractable problem without changing the game's fundamental paradigms.
Nonetheless, sorcerers, multiclassed or not, are not better rangers than rangers because they can outperform the ranger on one particular measurement.
Also, your sorcerer-warlock is outperforming fighters, paladins, single-classed warlocks, and indeed every pure caster on single-target ranged damage. Does that mean it's a better cleric than clerics are? No. It means that you found a multiclass combo that can specialize in one particular thing, and is likely the best at that thing if it does. Somebody's going to be that for any measurement.
"sorcerers, multiclassed or not, are not better rangers than rangers because they can outperform the ranger on one particular measurement. "
OK, so level 2 warlock has 3 invocations. one is for agonizing blast.
1 invocation can be pact of the chain to get something akin to a beastmaster sidekick.
1 invocation could be skilled to pick up the extra skills that rangers get (survival, perception, nature maybe)
1 invocation could be magic initiate Druid to get goodberry
1 invocation could be magic initiate Cleric to also get healing word.
pick any 2, or get a couple more levels in warlock and take them all.
Hunters Mark is replaced by Hex for same damage.
Seems like they can match a rangers functionality in a lot of ways.
Not only that, but because of the two levels of Warlock, you likely aren't getting the feats until level 10. And since Eldritch Blast generates multiple attacks you may see some DMs blocking it as a War Caster candidate even if you target the same target with every beam. (Jeremy Crawford has said that Green-flame Blade works fine, but that never made it into an official Sage Advice so it is RAI at best.)
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I'm pretty sure that this was made clear in the 2014 rules that the Warcaster reaction was not an opportunity attack and thus the character wouldn't get to use any benefits you would normally get on an OA and thus it would seem to follow that the target wouldn't get any benefits it would normally get against an OA either. I'm not sure if there is any change to that in the 2024 rules set though.
The part I'm wondering about though is if Eldritch Blast is valid for Warcaster at all? It wasn't allowable to be twinned under the 2014 rules but can't remember if Warcaster handled it differently.
I mean, the idea works but it's rather situational. A build that works only on a multiclass of two traditionally ranged caster classes, with a heavy reliance of going in melee and hoping they leave your reach.
A warlock with Armour of Agathys (5th level) & Hellish Rebuke (5th level) can deal an average of 58 (25 + 6d10) damage is already much more flexible compared to the requirement of two different feats, which are half the feats you can ever get due to the multiclass locking out the 5th one.
What makes a Sor-Lock better than the Ranger in a way that the warlock and sorcerer isn’t? A 9th level spell is already in your grasp, just use that and the variety of powerful spells a sorcerer has.
I shared this in a thread related to the War Caster feat:
I think that the distinction between War Caster and Twinned Spell in this regard is that War Caster says the spell “must target only that creature”, while the old Twinned Spell says the spell “must be incapable of targeting more than one creature”.
That’s a narrow line, but it does suggest that with War Caster it doesn’t matter how many things the spell CAN target, just how many you actually target with it.
pronouns: he/she/they
Agreed.
Sorlocks aren't new. You can find threads here discussing the concept from pretty much when D&D Beyond was created. The basic aspect has always been Agonizing Blast+Eldritch Blast + quicken if you want to cast it twice in a turn.
It has also been a popular war caster option for opportunity attacks. The only part of the OPs post I haven't noted before would be the interaction with Speedy. However, since PVP is relatively uncommon and NPCs tend to have stat blocks with abilities and not feats, it is generally not a big deal.
I'll also add that it isn't the highest possible single target damage build if that is what you are going for ... I think that position might go to the warlock-bard with similar shenanigans but substituting Conjure Minor Elementals for a second casting using quicken (There could be other builds with more attacks that would do even better). Prior to the nerf, CME used to be an extra 2d8 damage/attack at level 4 increasing by an extra 2d8/level upcast (this has been reduced to 1d8). A 7th level CME would do an extra 8d8 damage on each attack that hit (12d8 with a 9th level slot) this has been reduced to 5d8 with a 7th level slot or 7d8 with a 9th. This gets added to each beam of Agonizing blast if cast within 15' of the target.
Combine with Foresight for advantage on each attack roll and defensive benefits. The damage is ridiculous ... and this is primarily a bard character that has a great deal of other utility both in and out of combat (skill expertise for one). Bards get CME via magical secrets.
In addition, the 2024 iteration of the Rod of the Pact Keeper allows you to regain one spell slot - any spell slot - the text does not limit it to warlock spell slots so a warlock multiclass can use it to restore a 9th level spell slot (RAW).
Of course these builds use resources but it just gets back to the issue that in tier 4 (and to some extent tier 3), spellcasters are generally much better at damage of any kind than most melee characters unless the adventure has been able to drain/mitigate/reduce the resources of the spellcasters.
Anyway, I think that pretty much all of the points the OP makes are correct. You can use Agonizing/Eldritch blast as a spell with War Caster as long as the beams all target the creature that is triggering the opportunity attack.
"The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature."
The main down side to both the sorlock and the bardlock is that their primary spell progression is delayed by 2 or 3 levels - depending on whether you want 2 or 3 levels of warlock (the archetype options provide some significant benefits that might be worth the extra level at some point). As you play through tier 1 and 2 this has a significant impact on how the character will play. At level 5 for example, the sorlock will have agonizing blast but only 2nd level spells and no feats compared to a wizard with a higher casting stat from the feat and 3rd level spells which are game changing. Basically, the sorlock/bardlock character has a focus on single target damage relying on hex + eldritch blast to contribute to combat. At level 7 or 8, the character gets 3rd level spells and will have more options to support the party. In some ways, this is why the bardlock can be more fun to play since they will have decent skills and can be the party "face" until they get some higher level spells to have more combat options available.
WHAAAA??? I’ve never heard of this before! I mean, it “sort of” makes sense, but seems like a big reason not to use War Caster on a class that you would think fits it perfectly. I especially like the use of spells with full hands, so when i heard about fighter/warlocks I went all in. Like the level 20 for Rangers, the 20 for Warlocks is also pretty bad, especially when you get a similar ability now at level 2 that basically is just replaced.
Then again, War Caster is kind of the go-to for all magic users, so doing something different might help keep the game more interesting, but I don’t think anyone can really do the Fighter/Warlock combo like the Fighter/Warlock.
Anyway, I think the more important question is whether or not the Sorlock is better than the Ranger. Unfortunately, I think most would agree that since the Monk buff of 2024 Ranger is considered the worst class of the game. As to whether or not you can be a better ranger, if rangers are so bad, I’m not sure you would want to focus on that when you could be a better class bu focusing on what class you are. Just saying.
In my experience, war caster only gets taken by casters who expect to melee. I took it on a pure caster, and it didn't do a lot for me.
Better than the ranger at what? The idea presented in this thread -- that if you can out-damage a ranger with a bow, you're inherently a better ranger -- is seriously reductionist.
I doubt you can get majority agreement on any such thing. (But again: worst at what? You can probably work out who's the worst damage-dealer in a specific scenario, but that does not generalize, much less cover all the less-quantifiable features. You'd have to get agreement on what each class's role in the game is, and then evaluate how well each one fulfills their role. I predict 35 pages of thread before the moderators close it with extreme prejudice.)
I think this depends on what level of play you are looking at. I've played rangers through tier 2 and they do just fine. Hunter's mark is a decent boost to damage and when combined with two weapon fighting with nick and vex available they have the potential for 3 attacks every round doing 2d6 of damage. They aren't that different from fighter or paladin and have some ok spells to add to the mix. However, further increases in damage pretty much depend on magic items or feats. Short sword of wounding increases the weapon damage to 3d6 for example but requires an attunement slot. The Dual Wielding feat can increase this to four attacks/turn. Basically not that terrible but needs feats and magic items (compared to a sorlock which doesn't really need anything extra though Spell sniper does help).
At higher levels, martials generally fall behind and a ranger is no different. However, I've played tier 4 with other players with characters that are primarily rangers and they seem to have a good time. It isn't the same experience as dropping meteor swarm as a wizard but it is still fun.
The challenging one for me is fighter. They just seem really lackluster through tier 2 with 2 attacks doing d8+stat (if they are using a long sword). 1 short rest action surge doesn't add that much and uses resources ... battle master only has 4 or 5 superiority die to spend though that is also a short rest resource ... and if you play a different archetype you don't get those extra die of damage.Other archetypes like rune knight have some cool options but most are again 1/sr or 1/lr and only add a bit of damage (though some of the effects are exceptionally cool - like redirecting crits to opponents :) ).
A fighter with a great sword can sort of keep up damage wise with a base ranger with hunters mark but then the ranger gets the extra nick attack. (The fighter probably picks up great weapon master though).
Anyway, the only point I am making here is that for at least 1/2 or more of the usual game, up to about level 11 at least, the ranger is a decent choice mechanically and if you want to play a ranger for roleplaying (which is a far more important reason :) ), then the choice is not a bad one.
P.S. I don't know who designs these things but the level 20 ranger "capstone" of ...
"The damage die of your Hunter’s Mark is a d10 rather than a d6."
... seems ludicrous since it increases average damage by 2 points on every hunters mark use. So, if you rank them on the usefulness of level 20 abilities, the ranger might score quite low.
Interesting points about War Caster. Unfortunately, I don’t have much experience with multiple classes, so I am always keen to learn from others.
As far as better, I just mean at D&D victories in general. I wasn’t just referring to damage. …having said that, it is a huge part of it. It’s also worth noting some might just find a class more fun and if that is the priority then they should do that.
I should also note I only take one level of fighter to start in my fighter/warlock build to ensure i don’t fall too far behind and can get my epic boon in the event we make it to level 20. I will say though from what I’ve watched their sheer number of attacks (at least in the late game) combined with multiple action surges seem pretty clutch.
Like I said, I’ll always have more to learn, and if you find it more fun, you should probably play it rather than being miserable playing something you don’t like.