How good/fun/balanced is the Warlock class?
I'm back into D&D after a several-year hiatus; I'm DMing, but I've bolstered our small group (playing the Age of Worms AP) with two NPCs (a Ftr/Mnk and a Warlock).
As a DM, I find the Warlock's capabilities easy to manage. I'm also fond of the personalities for each, and plan on playing one if if someone else should start DMing.
I think the Warlock is cool. What's the consensus?
Jack
PS - apologies if this is a badly-outdated topic, but it's new for me, and I just picked up Complete Arcane.
When I played a warlock for the campaign City of the Spiderqueen, my DM found it to be a very cool class, describing my character as "you shoot friggin nukes from your hands every round, Mr I can turn invisble teleport and fly at will". Its fun, its got it's drawbacks which keep it in check, and I loved playing it. So overall, its not good or bad-it was just plain mean.
I've had a couple of games playing one at low level and yeah it was a realy fun character to play, I had an elven warlock fighter channeling his blast through his sword(concentration needed). A tortured warrior exiled from his homelands for treating with dark powers.
Its a class I wouldn't let a couple of my players use(I DM normally)due to some of the abilities they can obtain, but with a good role playing flair it's got some cool possibilities in the character development/story side of things, eg where do you receive your eldritch powers from, how do they affect the character as a campaign continues. Otherwise yeah the nuke from fingers thing is cool too lol
This is from one of Onries players-
One of my alts is a warlock illumian that has a pally friend. we kick butt and i sometimes have trouble with him and his give to the poor and pray for the church attitude. Being a power hungry warlock, more like money hungry but pretty much the same is really fun. I just recentley found out invocations and eldritch blast are unlimated. though you get a small choice. so if you wanna try it out i suggest you do.
Warlocks are very fun. They can't do many tricks, but they do them well, and often! Mixed with the average BAB, ability to wear light armor and use some weapons, and the cool other fiendish abilities they get, warlocks make a great class in my mind. Very fun storywise. I liked the ideas of warlocks being demonically tied, and was hoping for a more powerful summoner-type class, but I think the direction they took was just as good, partly because it's so different from every other arcanist out there. They have very good stroy options, too.
In my homebrew, all warlocks and hexblades (another fun class, in the Complete Warrior if you don't have it) stem from a massive ancient demonic invasion- they were experiments by the demons to make super soldiers out of the native humanoids, and the magical bloodlines continue to this day. I have an entire nation of warlocks that overthrew a powerful good aligned nation, and are a constant menace to the lands around them. The class is also an interesting alternative to sor/wiz among demon-worshiping humanoids, such as gnolls.
|
One of the Campaigns I am playing in sees it a bit different. Although the story aspects can be interesting and the class abilities are cool and all, it seems to be a little too powerful. Like, the touch AC attack with the eldrich blast is a bit much with the amount of damage dealt. And the spell-like abilities at will? It doesn't seem to balance out.
One of the Campaigns I am playing in sees it a bit different. Although the story aspects can be interesting and the class abilities are cool and all, it seems to be a little too powerful. Like, the touch AC attack with the eldrich blast is a bit much with the amount of damage dealt. And the spell-like abilities at will? It doesn't seem to balance out.
I agree. I'm seriously thinking about nerfing them for the next campaign I'm running. (CotSW)
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I haven't had the chance to get the complete arcana yet, I've been depolyed for a long time now. Anywhere I can go to look at the stats for a Warlock? Sounds really cool to play.
A bit from my Hoarde
The Warlock is unbalanced as is. You may think that it isn't because they only have a few powers, but the progression of damage the eldritch blast can do increases too quickly.
I had a pretty well-balanced game I was running last year and as soon as Complte Arcane came out, one of my players wanted to bring in a warlock. I looked at it and had the same impression as others-very few tricks, but at will, some combat ability... OK let's give it a try.
However, after only 3 sessions, this class was clearly unbalanced. The eldritch blast is just too powerful if you run the class as written.
I like the warlock for an evil NPC because most likely he'll be encountered once, maybe twice. Otherwise, it needs some fixing.
I'm with Steve on this. I too quickly found I had to ban the class as too powerful. Its OK only if combat is the exception in your campaign. If combat is a big part of the game then they are just too powerful.
Creative Director
|
Count me in the warlock camp. When I first read the class, my knee-jerk reaction was that it was way too powerful. But after seeing one in play for about a half year in the Saturday campaign I run, I have to say that they're not broken after all.
When you get right down to it, the closest thing you should compare a warlock to is the "archer". At 12th level, a warlock is launching a 6d6 eldritch blast a round, dealing an average of 21 points of damage per round. He won't be outshining the archer for damage, and he won't be outdoing the sorcerer or wizard either. But he will be doing something each round, and his eldritch blast fills a really neat niche (with non-typed damage; warlocks are great to have around when you're fighting golems!). His spell like abilities really aren't all that disruptive, with a few exceptions, and even those (like flee the scene) are easy to deal with once you wrap your head around them.
They're definately different. Adding warlocks to the game changes the tactics available to the party dramatically. But are they broken? No... just different.
They're certainly not invulnerable. The poor warlock in my game just got killed by a bodak yesterday. And unlike psionics... they don't grind the game to a halt or get insanely overpowered.
And comparing a warlock to a wizard is, in my opinion, not the way to judge its strength, since (in my opinion) the wizard (as written) is one of the least powerful classes in a campaign-style mode of play.
Warlocks get the James Jacobs Thumbs Up seal of approval, in other words. :)
I also thought of the Warlock as something of an archer. My initial reaction was that eldritch blast at will was too much, and that the damage went up too fast.
But it also occurred to me that it's hard for them to get two attacks per round with it, they have to make an attack roll, and their BAB isn't very impressive.
Other powers worry/worried me -- being able to fly at will seemed like a lot, but then wizards can potentially fly as often as they need to, so no biggie.
End result is that I'm (for now) with the supporters -- hopefully I won't regret it :)
Thanks,
Jack
One thing to remember about the Warlock that helps balance it out a bit at higher levels is that Eldritch Blast is subject to Spell Resistance. Also remember that a Warlock who invests in Hideous Blow to channel his blast through a weapon better have a good Concentration check - or he'll be sucking up a fair amount of Attacks of Opportunity.
My experience with them is fairly limited so far, but I see nothing about the class as a whole that's particularly overpowering - at least in my opinion.
How good/fun/balanced is the Warlock class?
It's a good 'fifth' character class (in our gaming group, anyway). It doesn't quite replace any of the other classes (though the Use Magic Device skill is a nice touch). That said, in the game we're playing now, I'm playing a Warlock who started as Rogue (he'll eventually hit Rogue 3/Warlock 3 and then just go onward with Warlock thereafter, right now he's Rogue 2/Warlock 1). With the 'able learner' feat, he'll continue to be a useful rogue via the rogue skills, and gain the warlock powers to boot.
I really enjoy playing him, and he's well received by the other characters. The eldritch blast means you always have an option open ("Well, I suppose I could just blast it...") and the invocations are interesting. We worked out a very detailed back story for him, and how his fiendish taint came to be, which always helps.
They don't seem too powerful (or, at least, not a whole lot more powerful that a sorcerer who has taken, say, magic missile and scorching ray and various other attack spells). And, like I said, the Use Magic Device skill is great - finally a use for the scrolls and wands that don't line up for anyone in the party.
'Nathan
But it also occurred to me that it's hard for them to get two attacks per round with it, they have to make an attack roll, and their BAB isn't very impressive.
It's actually impossible for them to get two shots off, unless they select the Quicken Spell-like Ability feat. Eldritch Blast is a Spell-like ability, and therefore requires a standard action to activate.
These sorts of little things are, in my opinion, what go a long way to balancing the class.
Anything that lets you play a wizard type while circumventing the standard D&D magic system is a good thing.
This class reminds me more of a comic book superhero, which can be a fun thing, depending on your point of view.
It's actually impossible for them to get two shots off, unless they select the Quicken Spell-like Ability feat. Eldritch Blast is a Spell-like ability, and therefore requires a standard action to activate.
These sorts of little things are, in my opinion, what go a long way to balancing the class.
I agree.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
And comparing a warlock to a wizard is, in my opinion, not the way to judge its strength, since (in my opinion) the wizard (as written) is one of the least powerful classes in a campaign-style mode of play.
I'm just curious, James, as to why you feel this way. Can you elaborate on why you think they're weaker than others? I've always considered wizards as one of the more powerful classes.
I'm just curious, James, as to why you feel this way. Can you elaborate on why you think they're weaker than others? I've always considered wizards as one of the more powerful classes.
Saern -
At least at low levels I would certainly agree with James. Even with the boost wizards got from the 3rd edition revision, they are still the most vulnerable and least powerful class at low levels. I tend to opt for specialist wizards to help balance at low levels - the loss of selection doesn't really hurt that much at low levels, since selection is rather limited anyway, but the extra spell of each level is a tremendous boon at those levels.
I like the warlock, and am mulling it as a replacement choice if my current kalashtar monk dies horribly next game session (we're surrounded by Emerald Claw warriors, so this is actually quite likely).
- Ashavan
i don't have complete arcane, but one of my players wants to run a warlock and I'm just concerned about the eldritch blast being a ranged TOUCH attack. Maybe the damage doesn't quite compare to the typical buffed fighter type, but nothing has a great touch AC except maybe an elder air elemental. and even rapid shot archer types don't get much of a strength bonus, so damage is less that the toe-to-to fighters.
with warlocks, you throw in at-will flight or invisibility or whatever and nearly no-miss blasts of untyped damage and i have concerns.
i run a moderately powered game so superheroes (warlock=green lantern?)are of less interest, but that's a question of taste i guess.
Also a question here- if the eldritch blast is susceptible to spell resistance wouldn't it be no good against a golem's spell immunity??
|
And comparing a warlock to a wizard is, in my opinion, not the way to judge its strength, since (in my opinion) the wizard (as written) is one of the least powerful classes in a campaign-style mode of play.I'm just curious, James, as to why you feel this way. Can you elaborate on why you think they're weaker than others? I've always considered wizards as one of the more powerful classes.
More importantly, what house rules do you use to balance out the Wizard. Reading between the lines seems to indicate you deviate from the RAW ...
|
And comparing a warlock to a wizard is, in my opinion, not the way to judge its strength, since (in my opinion) the wizard (as written) is one of the least powerful classes in a campaign-style mode of play.I'm just curious, James, as to why you feel this way. Can you elaborate on why you think they're weaker than others? I've always considered wizards as one of the more powerful classes.
I have to say, I can see James point.
-First off there is the low number of spells per day. Of course this can be fixed by becoming a specialist, but then you limit the number of schools you have access to.-hit points are poor. and even if you can take a feat to increase them (can't you do that?) it takes up a feat you could have used for something else.
-no armor, and even if you do wear it, the chance of spell failure increases.
-spells get more powerful at higher levels, but so do the bad guys. And many of them might have spell resistance at higher levels. Then there are resistances to various energies and other effects, all of which can limit the amount of damage your spells can do.
-and lets not forget that a wizard has to find time to sit down and memorize his spells. If he doesn't get that time then he's screwed unless he has an alternate form of attack.
All in all, I can see why the wizard would be considered the weakest. However, I believe a good player can overcome many of the problems inherent with the class if he plays smart.
|
|
I think the class is bad for the game. It is way overbalanced. The Warlock is a "spellcaster" with a d6. He goes up and the average BAB table. He gets to wear light armor. He has a faster healing ability. He has DAMAGE REDUCTION. And my god the eldritch blast is just ridiculous. Its a spell-like ability, that he can do at will with almost know way of disrupting it, and when a Warlock Reaches high enough levels you have a character who is at will flying and invisible hitting you with vitriolic blast (which is doing damage over time after it hits you) from 250 ft away with no range increment. Tell me an archer that is doing that? God I hate the Warlock!
I think the class is bad for the game. It is way overbalanced. The Warlock is a "spellcaster" with a d6. He goes up and the average BAB table. He gets to wear light armor. He has a faster healing ability. He has DAMAGE REDUCTION. And my god the eldritch blast is just ridiculous. Its a spell-like ability, that he can do at will with almost know way of disrupting it, and when a Warlock Reaches high enough levels you have a character who is at will flying and invisible hitting you with vitriolic blast (which is doing damage over time after it hits you) from 250 ft away with no range increment. Tell me an archer that is doing that? God I hate the Warlock!
John -
The cleric is a spellcaster with a d8 HD, armor, shield, and other special abilities.
A warforged can get damage reduction at level one with a feat
A high level wizard can manage flying virtually at will, as can a druid (w/ wildshape)
there are any number of spells with significant range and no range increment - searing light by a 10th level caster has a range of 200 feet and does 5d8 damage
Yes, the warlock has some powerful abilities. Yes, a single blow from eldritch blast does significant ranged damage. But it is a single blow. What about a fighter with improved two weapon fighting? That's what? five attacks in a full attack action at 11th level? And what other feats might the fighter have to make those more deadly?
That said, the warlock is an optional rule... one you do not have to include in your game.
- Ashavan
I think a similarly hyperbolic case could be made for any high-level character being too strong. I don't think it works out that way in play. The warlock's schtick is very narrow and he doesn't subsume or replace any other class.
Its a spell-like ability, that he can do at will with almost know way of disrupting it,
As a spell-like ability, Eldritch Blast provokes attacks of opportunity if used while threatened. And while it can be "cast" defensively, there are other ways to disrupt it as well - including readying an attack, either melee or ranged or even a spell.
and when a Warlock Reaches high enough levels you have a character who is at will flying and invisible hitting you with vitriolic blast (which is doing damage over time after it hits you) from 250 ft away with no range increment. Tell me an archer that is doing that? God I hate the Warlock!
I'm not in front of my books, so some of this may be wrong. But doesn't vitriolic blast change the damage to a typed energy (fire, perhaps)? If I'm remembering correctly, then suddenly your Eldritch Blast is susceptable to energy resistance and immunity.
As for the archer flying and being 250 feet away... I have a cleric archer that has among his domains the Travel domain. He has a composite longbow and the Far Shot feet. So while he's not within the first range increment at 250', it's in the second (so it's only a -2 to the attack roll). Sure, the Warlock is slightly better. However, his range ends at 250. My archer's range extends to 1,950 feet at it's max.
However, since most of his time has been spent underground (we're playing City of the Spider Queen), those sort of distances have very rarely come up.
|
Creative Director
|
I do use different rules in my home campaigns for wizards and sorcerers. (I'm one of those DMs who has a home-brew that fills dozens of notebooks).
My main problem with wizards boils down to the following concerns.
1: They get too few hit points.
2: When a wizard (or sorcerer) runs out of spells, he stops being a wizard since he has NO other abilities that set him apart from the rest of the classes. He turns into a commoner. No other class aside from these two has this problem
3: Among the four spellcasting classes that get spells up to level 9, the wizard gets the stingiest amount of spells per day. A 20th level wizard has only 4 spells per day of each level before his Int bonus, compared to a sorcerer's 6 per day, or a cleric's or druid's, for that matter.
4: The "benefit" of potentially being able to cast every spell in the game is a hollow, false benefit. Clerics and druids get this already, plus all their other abilites. And see #5 for the hidden kicker of this supposed "benefit."
5: Finally, the kicker. All of the wizard's abilities require them to spend money, time, and XP. His bonus feats are often item creation feats. Learning new spells can be prohibitively expensive (to say the least of paying to scribe them). Even his familiar costs money to get, and if (WHEN) it's killed, yup. It costs XP. In a campaign that doesn't allow for down-time, the wizard turns into a limited version of the sorcerer.
Where wizards shine is as NPCs or as PCs for one-shot adventures, since they can sidestep much of these issues and build their spells and abilities from scratch. Still... I think that just brings them close to being viable with other classes.
In every campaign I've seen a wizard played (which hasn't happened often—they're not popular choices for campaign play), that player has hit all five of the above problems and it's been a MAJOR source of concern.
Well, I certainly concede that at low levels, wizards are the most vulnerable. And, yes, my group has bumped into the money problem. We don't have the time factor so much, since I generally allow plenty of time between adventures (my groups is fond of craft skills, item creation feats, and I encourage long down times, since there's something about going from 1st to 20th level in less than 3 years that seems, well, wrong to me).
The low hit points and AC can be overcome easily enough with a handful of defensive spells: some long duration before a dungeon/encounter, and then one, maybe two in a pinch, short duration when the party finds the big badie. Not to mention, potions can be chugged as a move action, doubling the number of defensive spell effects one can bring to bear per round.
The low number of spells is easily circumvented with scrolls (which they can automatically make), and give them a reason to take less common, utility spells (don't bother preparing Knock, just keep a scroll or two of it handy). That costs money, but they don't need armor or weapon upgrades like other classes do, and they can take the item creation feats and get the things they DO need for half price. Not only that, they know a wider variety of spells, and thus can make more items than sorcerers, generally. The main money difference I see is that, when it's all said and done, the wizard has less ready cash, as it's all bound up in items he's made. But, I'd prefer that, since 2,000 gold in a cart isn't goin to save anyone when the beholder starts firing Disintigrate.
Enemies have energy resistance, but they have damage reduction, too, which affects fighters just as well (though, I'll admit, in 3.5, the switch to /magic instead of an enhancement bonus makes many DRs negligable). The energy substitution feat circumvents this, as does preparing spells that the enemy DOESN'T have resistance to; such information can, at higher levels, be obtained by divinations (yet another nod to the wizard's versatility). Conjurations also generally negate spell resistance, and there are always the Spell Penetration feats.
While the feasibility of knowing every spell rarely comes fully into play, I and my group find that the sorcerer's small number of spells known frustrating, compared with all options of things one can do with magic. As a side note, a player in my group once went through the touble to figure out how much it would cost to learn every sor/wiz spell in the PHB, deciding he would do so if we ever went Epic. It was surprisingly cheap compared to the wealth a, I think, 25th level character has.
I personally run wizards with only two changes: Their bonus feats can be anything I approve of that directly deals with magic/lore, and specializing only requires one prohibited school. Two is just too much of a price.
The only non-spellcaster I can remember playing, as a matter of fact, was a half-orc barbarian so stupid he thought he was one. He had a spell component pouch and everything. He'd hit things with his greatsword and proclaim "magic!" If anyone tried to tell him he wasn't a wizard, he'd menacingly hold up the sword and say, "You want magic, too?" He also thought that the half-orc cleric in the party was his brother, despite the many protests to the contrary from the cleric. I liked that barbarian. :)
Oh, and about familiars: Don't use them. They're a little bomb of pain waiting to explode, and the bonuses they give aren't worth it.
I do use different rules in my home campaigns for wizards and sorcerers. (I'm one of those DMs who has a home-brew that fills dozens of notebooks).
My main problem with wizards boils down to the following concerns.
1: They get too few hit points.
2: When a wizard (or sorcerer) runs out of spells, he stops being a wizard since he has NO other abilities that set him apart from the rest of the classes. He turns into a commoner. No other class aside from these two has this problem
3: Among the four spellcasting classes that get spells up to level 9, the wizard gets the stingiest amount of spells per day. A 20th level wizard has only 4 spells per day of each level before his Int bonus, compared to a sorcerer's 6 per day, or a cleric's or druid's, for that matter.
4: The "benefit" of potentially being able to cast every spell in the game is a hollow, false benefit. Clerics and druids get this already, plus all their other abilites. And see #5 for the hidden kicker of this supposed "benefit."
5: Finally, the kicker. All of the wizard's abilities require them to spend money, time, and XP. His bonus feats are often item creation feats. Learning new spells can be prohibitively expensive (to say the least of paying to scribe them). Even his familiar costs money to get, and if (WHEN) it's killed, yup. It costs XP. In a campaign that doesn't allow for down-time, the wizard turns into a limited version of the sorcerer.Where wizards shine is as NPCs or as PCs for one-shot adventures, since they can sidestep much of these issues and build their spells and abilities from scratch. Still... I think that just brings them close to being viable with other classes.
In every campaign I've seen a wizard played (which hasn't happened often—they're not popular choices for campaign play), that player has hit all five of the above problems and it's been a MAJOR source of concern.
You make some very excellent points, some of them I've considered (1, 3, and 5) and others I haven't (2 and 4). The last character I played for a great length of time (before the 3.5 revision, to give you an idea how long it's been since I've actually PLAYED a character) was a specialist Necromancer wizard. He became tremendously powerful, eventually transforming himself into a lich and retiring when he had conquered much of my brother-in-law's homebrew game world. Now, I have to admit, much of the reason he was so successful is because I (and he, in game terms) found ways around all these limitations. The conversion to an undead HD code and the DR and rejuvenation abilities of a lich vastly improved his physical survivability, and the effectiveness of his spells was boosted enormously by the special abilities of a PrC I and my brother-in-law worked out specifically for him. So, essentially, I agree with you, even though I've played a very powerful wizard; I realize that any high-level character with the right resources and tactics could have been just as powerful as he was. But here's the big question, and it may need a thread of its own: how did you go about fixing these problems with the wizard class?
In every campaign I've seen a wizard played (which hasn't happened often—they're not popular choices for campaign play), that player has hit all five of the above problems and it's been a MAJOR source of concern.
First, I think we've wandered far off topic from the warlock discussion, and this should probably be split into 2 threads so as to be courteous to the originator of this thread. That being said...
I've played a 1st/2nd edition Wizard from 1st - 14th lvl over the course of several years. In that time I had run into some of the problems listed...
#1 HP was never something I complained about, that was something that I always just took at face value... more would always be nice, and from a 3.x perspective I think all the d4 hd classes should be boosted up to D6.
#2 My oh my does this bring back memories... we played where if a caster was knocked unconcious that you lose all your prepared spells... take that in combination with the fact that my DM required me 8 hours of sleep... + 15 min per level of spell to memorize for each spell. In order to get my full compliment of spells back it took in the ballpark of 21 hours if fully depleted... try convincing a party in the middle of an adventure to take a day of downtime. I'm glad you don't lose your spells anymore and that it doesn't take so long to prepare them... but again, the price you pay for power right? In all actuality though we added something similar to an eldrich bolt for wizards pre 3.x... where you could do your level in damage at will (so 14 points at lvl 14 once per round) Just to be able to do something when you are out of spells.
#3 This is one of my biggest problems with 3.x from the arcane spellcaster standpoint. Wizards have been relatively unchanged... they start so weak that they really shouldn't survive without a lot of help... and get really powerfull right? Well, now all divine casters, who get double the hit points, armor, better base attacks, domain spells, turning undead, domain granted powers, better weapon selections, etc. get the same amount of spell power as a wizard to boot... oh... wait... clerics get more spells per level than a wizard. But wizard spells are more powerful right? That must be why they get less of them than clerics and druids? Well... no, not really... not anymore. Storm of Vengeance is just as powerful as a Meteor Swarm, Miracle is as good as a Wish, etc.
Oh, and don't forget that clerics with the magic and war domain gets some of the best wizard spells anyways...
#4 Well, kinda. If you play in a campaign the DM *should* allow you to research your own spells, which allow you some good stuff, pressing the limits of what is allowed at each level of spells, but yea... now that divine casters get 9th level spells of equal power or greater there isn't much point to being an arcane caster... just play a cleric of Boccob, Mystra, etc.
#5 At first, I agreed completely. The problem here is that you have to realize that 3.x D&D is more Diablo and less D&D. You instantly level up without training (with or without a *DING* / Gratz and flash of light.) You level up every 1-2 game sessions. The ridiculously fast XP system actually is designed so that if you are behind in XP... you catch up. Basically this would allow you to create a bunch of items, sell them for market value or more (especially if they are items based on a spell you designed / researched) and make quite a bit of money in the process. Then, you play 3-4 games and you are caught up in levels to your teammates. Personally I think the new XP system is great for casual players... but I enjoyed a slower advancement, when you got to use and learn about your new powers before you leveled up again. I think, at least for me, a lot of the 3.x stuff just takes getting used to before you can really just sit back and enjoy it (especially from a DM perspective.) Item creation feats I think really need some work, craft points are a nice idea, the "free xp" that an artificer gets are a nice idea for wizards too IMO... I donno. I agree with you on most of this though.
You level up every 1-2 game sessions.
I guess all I'll say here is you must play a really different game than I do. That's not a bad thing, of course. ;) It's generally in the 10 session range (give or take) between levelling up for us.
Personally, I think the wizard only looks "bad" compared to the other standards for dedicated spellcasters: The druid and (especially) cleric. Whether they're weakened or the wizard is strengthened, the problem would be solved either way.
Personally, I am all ditching all for "prepared" magic in the next edition of the game entirely and merging the wizard with a beefed-up (1d6 HD) sorceror to form a better base arcane spellcaster.
I guess all I'll say here is you must play a really different game than I do. That's not a bad thing, of course. ;) It's generally in the 10 session range (give or take) between levelling up for us.
Do you play the XP system by the book? Maybe I'm doing something wrong? As far as I can see though, I look at the Eberron modules, Dungeon Adventure paths, and other published stuff... every "adventure" which takes 1-2 sessions (5-6 hours or so in a session) seems to give 1+ level worth of XP. I think the Shackled City and Age of Worms paths are set to go from levels 1-20ish in 13-15 adventures (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this please)
I have loved to play Wizards since 1st edition. They're by far my favorite class, and I find them to be a challenging and rewarding. Here's why:
1. Every knowlege-based skill is a class skill for the Wizard. Yeah, Bards get 'em too, but they have to devote skill points to Perform, etc. to stay effective, and are only likely to take the ones important to being a Bard (like local knowledge). Wizard will actually use them. With the right DM, this can make you effective in a variety of situations.
2. The Item Creation feats are not that bad. . . They take time and XP, but you can get twice as much loot as everyone else with your share of the gold. Having one or two low level offensive wands, allows the Wizard to prepare a very wide variety of spells. Conversely, having a bunch of utility scrolls allows the Wizard to be an nuker. Also, if you happen to lose a level on the rest of the party losing large amounts of XP to Item Creation, the 3rd edition experience tables are designed to help you get it back. Granted, the DM MUST accomodate for the time, and hopefully, the he/she is keeping the Wizard in mind before running ten straight sessions that only cover a single "day in the life." Plus, all that loot!
2a. If you don't like Item Creation, you still get to choose bonus Metamagic feats. With Complete Arcane, it's a great selection.
3. I think the spell diversity IS a good benefit, because the Sorcerer/Wizard spells are the most powerful list pound-for-pound. Plus, the Sorcerer's highest spell level is one behind the Wizard. . . this alone makes the Wizard more effective against day-to-day fights with approporiate CRs.
4. Wizards can specialize. +1 spell/level.
5. Wizards have (in my opinion) the most diverse set of prestige classes, and most of them are actually devoted to the Wizard's primary ability (spellcasting). I have yet to see a good set of clerical prestige classes (again, IMO).
6. 3rd edition battle tactics. The focus on position and movement in 3rd edition means that the Wizard can put himself out of harm's way more easily, instead of getting ganked every round. Plus, the turn-based system combined with the ability to use standard actions for spells has been a nice way to avoid "spell fizzle."
If I have any sugesstions to improve the class, I would say that the Wizard should get more skill points per level, a +1 "arcane" bonus to overcoming spell resistance and dispelling magic that NO other class gets in order to put emphasis on his intelligence and expertise (which improves to +2 at 6th level maybe, etc.), and a cheaper cost to add new spells to his spellbook.
I'm pretty happy with everything else.
3. I think the spell diversity IS a good benefit, because the Sorcerer/Wizard spells are the most powerful list pound-for-pound. Plus, the Sorcerer's highest spell level is one behind the Wizard. . . this alone makes the Wizard more effective against day-to-day fights with approporiate CRs.
Raw spellcasting power per spell I think may be a little more subjective. But I clicked over to the SRD and compared some 5th and 7th lvl spells I thought are around equal power. Granted, the Wizard spell list is more extensive... but you have to find a way to acquire every spell you want where the cleric gets access to all the spells in every book for free.
5th lvl- Cone of Cold (Wiz) vs Flame Strike (Cleric)
1d6/lvl (15d6 max) 1d6/lvl (15d6 max)
Cone shaped all ice 10' rad / fire/divine mix
The cone of cold can potentially hit many more targets, but is harder to target properly while avoiding allies and is all 1 type of damage.
The flame strike is easier to target / avoid hitting friends, does the same amount of damage, and half of its damage is divine power (so no resistance).
---
7th lvl - Finger of Death vs Destruction
Fail your save you die from both (can't be rez'd as easily from destruction though)
Make your save and finger deals 3d6 (+1/lvl)
destruction deals 10d6
Both spells have the same range, etc.
I tried to choose spells that were relativly similar. I don't think the arcane caster really gets much of an edge if any...
Meanwhile the cleric had double the wizard's hit dice, full plate armor, good weapons, better bab, turn undead, can take item creation feats, and if he chooses the right domains can have some of the better/scary arcane spells anyways.
And comparing a warlock to a wizard is, in my opinion, not the way to judge its strength, since (in my opinion) the wizard (as written) is one of the least powerful classes in a campaign-style mode of play.
I am in agreement that the style of play can dictate the usefullness of a wizard: a DM that plays the class to the 'T' as it is written in the core rule books is at a disadvantage where material components is an issue. I also agree that XP and gold coin costs are a disadvantage.
But consider this: In an campaign of low magic, the wizard is an unstoppable and invaluable. Conversely, a campaign of high magic makes wizards next to unnecessary.
However, I ultimately disagree with the assertion that Wizard is the weakest class; when you sunder a fighter's weapon, they become the commoner.
Back to the topic at hand, wouldn't a Warlock become boring to play? Seems like a one-trick pony (without actually reading the class) to me.
I have been playing a Human Warlock in the Shackled City adventure book for a couple of months now, and I find it to be a fun and enjoyable class. It is not overpowerful, and making up for its differences are hard, even with magic items.
There are extensive writings on the warlock at the WOTC website messageboards, as well as official erratta and many discussions on power levels and similar.
The Downside of Warlocks:
1. The saving throws suck. Just last night my character nearly died twice. Once from the breath weapon of a red Dragon and a then by a fast healing Cryohydra! The only reason I lived was because of the NPC cleric and my d6 hit points.
2. Warlocks can't hurt most golems, unless they take the acid power for their blast. Even then clay golems are immune.
3. I'm at 7th level, and I'm really missing a fireball spell about now. I've gone through an entire Necklace of Fireballs pretty much already.
4. Spell Resistance Sucks, as does incorporial creatures, regenerating/fast healing creatures, displacement creatures/effects, flying creatures, etc...
5. No extra feats. This is the real kicker. You have to plan your feat choices way ahead of time. (I always suggest Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot ASAP for Warlocks!)
6. Limited invocation choices: You better plan these too! Decide what kind of warlock you want to have, then take the right powers for your warlock and build around that concept...(Stealthy...take invisibility ASAP, spellbreaker...dispel magic, sniper...fly, etc...). No invocations to pump up other characters either. The Warlock is a very selfish spellcaster!
7. Unless Quicken Spell-Like Ability is taken at 6th level, only one blast per round. And it does cause attacks of opportunity when in melee, so pump up that concentration skill!
8. No enough skill points: My guy has a +2 Int bonus and still only gets 5 points per level (because he's human). That means once you pump up Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft, Use magic Device, and Concentration...it leaves you with one point left over to put somewhere else...
The Upside of Warlocks:
1. Energy blast. Use it. Use it often!
2. Baleful Utterance: Make sure you have a high Charisma! Shatter spell at will!
3. Light armor useage! (I'm up to a mithral breastplate +1 now)
4. Most invocations last 24 hours unless stated otherwise!
5. Eventual ability to use and make almost any magic item!(I've personally got six wands I'm currently juggling around).
6. Invocation combos are a must! (Flight with invisibility and Entropic Warding is great!)
7. With a good charisma neccessary and decent skill choices available, warlocks make good front men or leaders. (My Warlock is a Noble of Cauldron)
Warlock Reccomendations:
1. High Dex, Con, and Cha! (A good Wis or Int couldn't hurt either)
2. Point Blank Shot and Precise shot are a must!
3. Plan out all your warlock's Feat and Invocation choices ahead of time, as well as any multiclass levels you plan to take.
4. Some of the best multiclass choices are Rogue/Warlock (for eldritch blast sneak attacks, skill points, and evasion), Fighter/Warlock (More Feats!), and believe it or not Sorcerer/Warlock (This is mainly a Sorcerer thing allowing the sorcerer to concentrate on other types of spellcasting!)
5. IMHO Quicken Spell-Like Ability is one of the best things to get for your Eldritch Blast at sixth level. It can be used to circumvent attacks of opportunity in melee, as well as allow for an additional blast per round. (I took two heads off that hydra in one round that way! -- even though the heads regenerated later.). (Others might prefer Maximise or Empower Spell-Like Ability...)
6. Get as many magic items to make up for your deficiencies as possible. Wands, Potions, and Misc. Magic are the cheapest and easiest to get at first of course. This is especially important when a Warlock is the primary spellcaster in a group - like mine. (My personal Warlock is wielding wands of healing, inflict, sleep, burning hands, and color spray.) Start with some Alchemical items (Sunrods, Alchemist's Fire, Thunder Stones, Tanglefoot Bags, Tindertwigs, and even Holy Water) if you can afford them at first level.
7. Once a warlock can get a decent magic weapon, they can be semi-effective in melees as well. Just stay away from the combat melee monsters.
tHeMaDonE
=)
7. Unless Quicken Spell-Like Ability is taken at 6th level, only one blast per round.
Actually, the description of the Quicken Spell-like Ability feat in the 3.5 MM makes it impossible for a Warlock who isn't above 20th level to apply it to his Eldritch Blast. This is because the blast is considered a spell-effect whose level is equal to half the Warlock's class level, Min 1st, Max 9th, and to apply QSLA to, a spell-like ability has to be a certain level below the user's caster-level. I don't know the formula without looking at the book, but you better believe I crunched the numbers as soon as I got Complete Arcane and studied the class before I decided to allow it into my games. A Warlock has to be epic level in order to apply Quicken Spell-Like Ability to his Eldritch Blast.
I would allow Quicken if the spell level of the blast was lowered. Other casters can select to lower the caster level on effects if they choose, so warlocks should be able to, as well. With that, a warlock could first take the feat at 10th level and get one free 1d6 blast in addition to the normal 5d6. At 20th, he could do a 6d6 free with his normal 9d6. The caster level would be lower, however, for overcoming SR.
Also, don't forget Ability Focus! That one feat gives +2 to every save DC for every invocation. I put that on the "must have" list for warlocks, as well.
|
Creative Director
|
But consider this: In an campaign of low magic, the wizard is an unstoppable and invaluable. Conversely, a campaign of high magic makes wizards next to unnecessary.
However, I ultimately disagree with the assertion that Wizard is the weakest class; when you sunder a fighter's weapon, they become the commoner.
Back to the topic at hand, wouldn't a Warlock become boring to play? Seems like a one-trick pony (without actually reading the class) to me.
Not quite... Sunder a fighter's weapon and he keeps his bonus feats, his good fort save, his high attack bonus, and his armor. And he probably has a backup weapon. At the very least, he can still grab a club and go to work on the bad guys with it.
Take away a wizard's spells and he's a commoner with a good will save. Perhaps a commoner with a familiar.
As for a low-magic campaign, the cleric's still got the wizard beat. There's more to dominating low-magic-world than area effect spells (which clerics get eventually anyway)...
As for the warlock... Seeing one in play, they didn't seem to be boring at all. No more a one-trick pony than a fighter, really. The secret to the warlock's diversity is the Use Magic Device skill; since they don't auto-fail on a natural 1, this pretty much makes them the best magic item users in the game at high level.
Actually, the description of the Quicken Spell-like Ability feat in the 3.5 MM makes it impossible for a Warlock who isn't above 20th level to apply it to his Eldritch Blast. This is because the blast is considered a spell-effect whose level is equal to half the Warlock's class level...
Actually, the offical erratta has changed that. Check the WOTC website for details, but now an eldritch blast, unless modified by an eldritch essence or shape is always considered a 1st level blast now. Period. (Including for penetrating SR) That means that a warlock can apply Quicken, Maximise, or even Empower Spell-Like Ability to his blast at 6th level, as long as he doesn't apply a blast shape or essence as well.
=)
I had a serious problem with the Warlock class. I don't mind dealing with unbalaned classes normally, but the warlock was the most problematic.
What other class in the game can do good damge and ignore armor AT WILL? With the various abilities, they can be hard to manage. So I am against the class, and generally don't allow it to be played.
I've got to get the Complete Arcane. That is what this is in right? I like what I'm hearing about the Warlock so far and unless something in the book makes me change my mind, I would have no problem in letting it into my game.
A bit from my Hoarde
I guess all I'll say here is you must play a really different game than I do. That's not a bad thing, of course. ;) It's generally in the 10 session range (give or take) between levelling up for us.Do you play the XP system by the book? Maybe I'm doing something wrong? As far as I can see though, I look at the Eberron modules, Dungeon Adventure paths, and other published stuff... every "adventure" which takes 1-2 sessions (5-6 hours or so in a session) seems to give 1+ level worth of XP. I think the Shackled City and Age of Worms paths are set to go from levels 1-20ish in 13-15 adventures (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this please)
Its really going to depend on how combat heavy your adventuring is. My players are going up every 5-6 sessions - but some sessions are a near bust in terms of XP since they did not make any story awards during the session and no bad guys where gruesomly slaughtered.
Actually, the offical erratta has changed that. Check the WOTC website for details, but now an eldritch blast, unless modified by an eldritch essence or shape is always considered a 1st level blast now. Period. (Including for penetrating SR) That means that a warlock can apply Quicken, Maximise, or even Empower Spell-Like Ability to his blast at 6th level, as long as he doesn't apply a blast shape or essence as well.=)
Wow, cool. Thanks for the tip; I may have to strongly consider a Warlock for my next chracter then, because they're cool as-is, but if you can actually take things like Empower and Quicken spell-like ability with them below 20th level, they just got even better. (And yeesh, it's hard enough just keeping up with all the info that's in published retail material, much less web-based official errata. Thanks again for the heads-up.)
Several people have mentioned that they have found that the warlock gets out of control. What part(s) of the class get out of control? Is it the blast, a few of the spell like abilities, or the easy magic item crafting and use?
Several people have mentioned that they have found that the warlock gets out of control. What part(s) of the class get out of control? Is it the blast, a few of the spell like abilities, or the easy magic item crafting and use?
I think people tend to look at the class as magic heavy and with the ability to throw an eldritch blast and cast spells with durations of 24 hours at will...
But I can tell you from personal experience: They have some hefty limitations...
1. Not enough feats. No bonus feats. One of the best classes for some of the more interesting feats...but limited to a total of 7 total feats by 20th level (8 if human).
2. Saving throws:I can't say how awful these are. I even took the Luck of Heroes feat from the forgotten realms just for the +1 luck bonus to all saves and my Warlock's saves still suck!
3. Even an eldritch blast causes an attack of opportunity. Defensive casting is a must!
4. SR sucks for a normal Eldritch blast. Unless pumped up with feats (Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, etc...) or with better blast shapes or essences first. However choosing blast shapes or essences means the Warlock gets to choose fewer invocations!
5. All his abilities (except the use and creation of magic items) are internal or only usable for himself. He can't use any of his invocations to help other players... I personally bought a wand of Cure Light Wounds (and Color Spray) at first opportunity.
6.Very few invocations have large area of effect with tons of damage (i.e. No Fireballs!). Even his blast shapes don't allow for multiple targets until high levels! (My warlock is 8th le vel now and still doesn't have any area of effect powers-although I just bought a wand of fireballs with 5 charges!!)
7. Being able to wear light armor is great-to a point. Now our group just found a suit of Mithral Full Plate-Mail +1 and I am seriously thinking about taking a level in fighter or cleric at ninth level just to get the medium armor prof. and take the feat in the complete arcane that allows for better armor usage with no spellcasting penalties! (A technical waste of a feat and a level just to get an AC of 25!)
A warlock is often confused as a substitute for wizard, sorcerers, or even clerics; but often fails to accomplish this goal. If you want to stand up and blast monsters away by the dozen the warlock really isn't your best choice. But if you want to blow a hole in every orc you see and sneer at your enemies with style...the warlock is your best bet-if they come at you one at a time!
It's also about focus, picking the right invocations can make you a great assasin, thief, or magical jack of all trades. The Warlock to me, is really a great magical sniper. That's about it. Hope that helps.
=)