So far I haven't seen any incontrovertible arguments that the class is broken.
What's occurred to me while reading posts is that the Warlock doesn't effectively fill a vital role (fighter, healer, offensive spellcaster, thief, as I see them) -- it's one of those classes that is terminally relegated to support (like the bard and maybe monk). There's nothing it does better than a traditional class, and most things it does worse.
For what its worth,
Jack
What I'd most like to see for the class is something a little more... 'vanilla' with regards to the warlock's abilities. Don't get me wrong, I think the class is fantastic.
At its core, I see the Warlock as a being capable of manipulating the raw forces of magic itself, and learns a small selection of 'tricks' that they can do whenever they like. First and foremost of these is its Edritch Blast, followed by the invocations, and further refined by the class' mastery of the Use Magic Device skill.
Then we throw in its other abilities. Fiendish Resilience, DR vs Cold Iron, and the 'flavor' of the invocations all strongly suggest infernal influence, despite the claim on Pg 6 that "many warlocks are created by non-evil powers - wild or fey forces that can be every bit as dangerous as demons or devils."
I'd either like to see them pick an Origin, which determines things like invocations they can take (or flavors the invocation appropriately), as well as some of their abilities. Or failing that, replace a couple of abilities with Spell Resistance which, in my mind, suits the core capabilities of the class much better.
Mind you, I'm not against dark flavored classes, or even strongly flavored classes of any alignment. I just see the Warlock's core concept as something that doesn't have an inherent flavor aside from raw or barely controlled power.
Ok so here is my question. The group I play in just moved into the World's Largest Dungeon. It wasn't the plan when we started the characters, but that's where we ended up. I'm playing a Wizard and so far the adventure is very wizard unfriendly. To add to that, the group I'm in isn't much for tactics and relies mostly on the buff dwarven fighter to lead the charge followed by the really strong priest of Pelor. Add to that a Ranger specialized in shooting a bow.
I tried just buffing people since organizing the group to use other spells didn't seem to work. That still doesn't seem to be working. So I have thought about switching to a Warlock. Would it be a good fit? I know it's not an exact replacement for a wizard, but with a brute force group I was thinking it could work.
Ok so here is my question. The group I play in just moved into the World's Largest Dungeon. It wasn't the plan when we started the characters, but that's where we ended up. I'm playing a Wizard and so far the adventure is very wizard unfriendly. To add to that, the group I'm in isn't much for tactics and relies mostly on the buff dwarven fighter to lead the charge followed by the really strong priest of Pelor. Add to that a Ranger specialized in shooting a bow.
I tried just buffing people since organizing the group to use other spells didn't seem to work. That still doesn't seem to be working. So I have thought about switching to a Warlock. Would it be a good fit? I know it's not an exact replacement for a wizard, but with a brute force group I was thinking it could work.
To me, and the way I've envisioned a Warlock and the tactics to make the most out of one, that kind of game actually sounds perfect for a Warlock. The constant barrage of magical firepower, the limitless uses of all the (admittedly limited) tricks and invocations, and the eventual ability to skillfully activate virtually any type of magic item with the Deceive Item class feature really lend themselves to a near-endless dungeon-crawl.
...I tried just buffing people since organizing the group to use other spells didn't seem to work. That still doesn't seem to be working. ...
I'll definitely agree with VC here. If, for whatever reason, buffing the party isn't working out and they won't utilize strategies that include your spell slinging, a warlock would probably be a good fit.
But you aren't alone in having a group that doesn't appreciate tactics. I recently started playing a wizard because the DM said he'd like to see a primary spellcaster in the group. This group isn't one that's known for tactics. In fact, their only tactic is that the rogue scouts ahead while invisible (not that he needs it, with his hide skill). And when we hear something scream, we all go rushing in. By the time any spellcaster gets there, it's rough trying to use a wizard's major asset - their damaging area effect spells - in the combat.
If you stick it out with a wizard, you might try to focus on spells that can swing the tide of battle in more subtle ways. Enchantments to weaken the ranks, for example. Or single target spells to nail whichever critter seems critical to put down quickly.
But going with a warlock would provide /you/ with more utility. Your buffs will be self centered, and you'll be able to dish out damage along with everyone else. And who knows, the party might end up regretting that they didn't find a place for the wizard when he's gone. ;)
Ok so here is my question... So I have thought about switching to a Warlock. Would it be a good fit?...
As I suggested above, I've come to think the Warlock is a promising (though limited) supporting class. They offer some useful fire support, though there's no way for them to be front-line combatants. Beyond that, I think they have some nice invocations providing movement and recon abilities (like invisibility and spider climb).
Just a thought or two :)
Jack
...though there's no way for them to be front-line combatants.
Although, they can actually be a nice backup to a fighter, or a good flanking partner to a rogue or cleric or bard or something, with the right invocation choices (particularly Hideous Blow)
I found the warlock a very interesting class to play. Specially because I get a little nervous about playing with a limited number of abilities (spells, for example) per day. A class like that obliges you to play with careful planning and using your abilities wisley. And even if you do, a miss makes you waste vital uses or slots (specially for wizards). A warlock can use his spell-like abilities at will, so you can use them without careful planning. And so what if you miss, you can always retry the next turn.
I also have a question: Could an undead warlock use its utterdark blast to heal himself?
I don't care for the warlock. mainly because it seems underpowered to me. Having seen them in action first hand in Saern's campain the blast damage just doesn't seem to add that much compaired to what a melee fighter or archer could do. The touch attack, negating damage reduction, all nice but when I see a 6th lvl fighter with 18str use power attack and a greatsword to deal 2d6+12 with ONE ATTACK (then throw in cleave, his next attack, maybe haste, ect) the 7th lvl warlocks 4d6 average 14 damage per round (which is min for the fighter) just doesn't seem up to snuff.
Then look at a 7th lvl wiz, completely discounting the massive versitily of a wiz spell selection He can use scorching ray to fire 2 4d6 rays doubling what the warlock can do with a spell 2 lvls lower than the strongest he can cast!
I've tried to look at this from different angles but every time i try i can think of an easy way for any pre existing class to trump them Except maybe blasting through obstacles since the firepower is unlimited
The warlock is very unique and i praise it in that respect, but it's that same love of the bizzarre that makes me sad at it's lack of usefulness
Following up on Sexi Golem's post, before other people respond, 18s are VERY common in our campaigns. I have a pretty generous rolling system, but it still seems that they pop up abnormally frequently. It's becoming increasingly obvious to us that our dice are actually sentient beings with personalities, and have different amounts of empathy with different players. Or maybe it's the "pick the best out of 3 stat sets," attitude, since one of the players, and myself when I play, can't roll anything above a 13 most of the time.
Searn I actually considered that when I wrote the post
the fighter started with a 15str , +1 at fourth lvl, and +2 gauntlets of ogre strength, pretty reasonable I think
A sixth lvl fighter in our campains have closer to 22 str and do a hell of a lot more damage than my example
The warlock could be many things, but never underpowered. First of all, maybe the fighter could make more damage at 7th level, but it still has to bypass the AC of all monsters, which is pretty much higher than the SR of those monsters (if they even have one). Also, a warlock of 7th level could use a brimstone eldritch chain to affect 2 targets, equalizing the scorching ray of the wizard, but using it at will. Finally, the warlock at 7th level has DR 2/cold iron. Even if it isn't very high, it's very useful.
You are talking only about low levels. At 11th level, the warlock can use the vitriolic blast to ignore SR and cause further damage in consequent rounds. And at 16th level, he can use the utterdark blast to bestow 2 negative levels to most enemies it strikes, reducing its power quickly, and eventually, killing him (either by its damage or by equalizing its negative levels with its current level).
I'm not telling the fighter or the wizard or any other classes are weak, but the warlock isn't definitly underpowered nor useless.
Following up on Sexi Golem's post, before other people respond, 18s are VERY common in our campaigns. I have a pretty generous rolling system, but it still seems that they pop up abnormally frequently.
I admit that I have a personal example thars driving my argument. The current Warlock in our campaign rolled THREE 18s! for his character. but aside from the DC's from his invocation affects (sickness only so far) none of hs class abilities are affected by his massive stats. just [poof 10 damage poof 15 damage
The warlock could be many things, but never underpowered...
I think I disagree here. If an opponent can cope with the warlock's eldritch blast, there are very few (if any) abilities to fall back on. Wouldn't we describe wizards as weak if all they could do was cast fireball?
In the grand scheme of things, being a one-trick pony may very well make them underpowered.
Later :)
Jack
I think I disagree here. If an opponent can cope with the warlock's eldritch blast, there are very few (if any) abilities to fall back on. Wouldn't we describe wizards as weak if all they could do was cast fireball?In the grand scheme of things, being a one-trick pony may very well make them underpowered.
Later :)
Jack
I've never seen it from that point of view, but wouldn't a fighter face the same problem if he faced an opponent that had an AC and/or DR high enough to resist almost any attack attempt from the fighter's weapons? I think he would then have less abilities to fall back on than a warlock facing someone who can cope his eldritch blast.
I've never seen it from that point of view, but wouldn't a fighter face the same problem if he faced an opponent that had an AC and/or DR high enough to resist almost any attack attempt from the fighter's weapons? I think he would then have less abilities to fall back on than a warlock facing someone who can cope his eldritch blast.
Yes I agree but if fighter can't physically affect something ( which if the FIGHTER can't hit it at all then it seems like he is fighting something out of his league) he still has other niches to fill maybe he can still grapple the creature, or any other combat manuvers, failoing that his job becomes to assume a defencive possition in front of the charaters that can win the fight and draw the enemies fire away from less tough characters. The warlocks can't really claim any niches.
I have one question about the warlock. If a warlock chooses maximize spell-like ability as a feat to maximize his eldritch blast, would it affect all types of his eldritch blast (vitriolic blast, brimstone blast, eldritch cone, etc.) or only the normal form?
As a WoW player and D&D fanatic, my plans are to incorporate the 'Lock in my realm...it's an excellent class and can lead to lots of exciting adventure...but I'm planning a few changes. One will be to allow the 'Lock to summon and command minions that mimic the WoW minions. I'm still drawing out the plans, but I think, as long as I can balance it out, it will be exciting.
Stillfoxx
"Live or die, you decide..."
I have one question about the warlock. If a warlock chooses maximize spell-like ability as a feat to maximize his eldritch blast, would it affect all types of his eldritch blast (vitriolic blast, brimstone blast, eldritch cone, etc.) or only the normal form?
According to the book I would say yes, it reads that "an eldritch blast is not an invocation but some invocations modify a warlocks eldritch blast". Those invocations only change the shape or targets of the blast nothing else. However I assume a DM could argue the point that the descriptions of some of the essence invocations say they change the blast from an eldritch blast to say a sickening blast. Its really up to the DM in the end however.
As for my $.02, after playing two warlocks I dont find them overpowered at all. My first one was a straight warlock and was killed by a swarm, something they have almost no offensive power against until they finally are able to pick an area invocation at 11th. My second one has done better, but of course he took some rogue and relies heavily on hiding. Combining rogue with an otherwise pure warlock has been wonderful though, and combined with feats Weapon Finesse, Exotic weapon: Spiked Chain, and Able Learner plus the invocation Hideous Blow he's done very well more as a stand in for a rogue than a caster.
The ability for a warlock to fly and use a short dimensional door isnt so powerful for a class that cant hit more than a single target until after 6th level and about the only defense they have at their disposal. Since my DM mostly runs underdark campaigns I can tell you that fighting with a warlock is hell when everything and its mother has an SR, "Flee the Scene" has saved me many a time and given me enough of a distraction to hide or cast invisiblity on myself. Even a simple goblin group poses some serious problems to a warlock of less than 11th level or without the shaping invocations. Sure he can one shot a goblin or two a round but how many rounds does he get before they are on top of him? A mage of 5th level or a scorcer of 6th can drop a fireball on top of them and be done with the whole encounter. On top of that there are prestiege classes everywhere for wizards and scocerers, but few Ive seen would much benefit a warlocks progression. Even the rare one a warlock could join with a "+level class" increase wouldnt do him any good since his eldritch blast wouldnt increase with it since it isnt a spell but a class ability gained with levels much like a sneak attack.
Not that it really matters, but in the games I run, I don't allow any classes outside of the core classes in the Player's Handbook, with the exception of the artificer class if we're playing an Eberron game.
For example, the swashbuckler?!? A fighter who takes Weapon Finesse, Dodge, etc... what's the difference? Same with the warlock in my opinion. What exactly can it do that a wizard or sorcerer can't do in one way or another?
But maybe it's just me.
Urthblade, I agree with you on many points here. For example, the Cavalier PrC. It's nice and everything, and I've personally played along side a mid-leveled one for some time and it didn't seem to be unbalanced (the huge damage potential is available only in very limited situations). But, isn't any warrior-type on a horse with a lance/sword more or less the same thing? If you want to be a Cavalier, just get said horse and lance and start running at things! It seems that, many times, a PrC would be better summed up in a new feat series or something, or that the books are just looking to fill page space. But I digress.
Where I disagree with you is that the warlock is anything like any other arcanist. They aren't. Warlocks are nothing like any other class, really. Parallels can be seen, but there are so many strange, new facets that they are truly unique. Is that a good thing? It depends largely on player/DM style. For some, they're perfect. For others, they're TOO different, and it's hard to find an exact role for them.
I find this latter problem to pop up mainly with pure warlocks. Multiclassing them gives a player bit more direction, I think, and they do mesh really well, since all they really need is a decent Charisma for Eldritch Blast DCs. None of their ability modifiers go to any other unique class abilities.
|
I have one question about the warlock. If a warlock chooses maximize spell-like ability as a feat to maximize his eldritch blast, would it affect all types of his eldritch blast (vitriolic blast, brimstone blast, eldritch cone, etc.) or only the normal form?
Per the official FAQ/Errata, you are correct, but you must be high enough level to use it. This was the original reason for them fixing the spell level of a 'vanilla' blast at 1st. For example, you cannot Maximize SLA on an Eldritch Spear until 8th level.
I am playing a blast-centric Warlock right now (we are all playing characters modeled after Marvel superheroes, and I chose Havok), and by 11th I have taken Sudden Still Spell, Sudden Maximize Spell, Maximize Spell-Like Ability, Mortalbane Spell-Like Ability, and Empower Spell-Like Ability. At 12th, I will take Quicken Spell-Like Ability. I also have a greater Chasuble (a must have for any Warlock PC at around 8th to 10th level). At any given encounter during the day, my DM knows that I can bring the pain. I used to be 'quick on the trigger' and use up those limited 'super-supreme' (i.e. Maximized-Empowered-Mortalbane at the same time) blasts early in the day, but I have since learned to ration that damage out, much like a wizard would ration out his high-level nukes.
The main drawback from the warlock, in my opinion, is the lack of feats/invocations, and the warlock is a feat-hungry class...but this brings balance. It has been said previously, but you have to pick your path, and pick it early on. Every feat selection is critical, and I find myself agonizing for days after I find out that I just made a new level. Agonizing over things like, "Should I take Ability Focus, or is Greater Spell Penetration going to help me out more? What about an item creation feat...I don't know!!"
I have seen many kinds of Warlock builds, from those built completely around Hideous Blow, to the Psy-Locke (utilizing Greater Psionic Shot and Psionic Meditation for +4d6 to the Eldritch Blast every single round), to the Multi-Purpose Warlock (who takes every feat from 6th level and on as Extra Invocation, and ends up with as many as 18 invocations to choose from), to the Battlefield Control Warlock (using Chilling Tentacles, Wall of Perilous Flame, Miasmic Cloud, and Repelling Blast to knock people around).
All in all, I say kudos for the Warlock class. Its the most creative base class to be made since 3rd edition was first released (outside of the original 13, that is).
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....
Warlocks get the James Jacobs Thumbs Up seal of approval, in other words. :)
(Bolding mine)
I was just reviewing what people have said about warlocks as I have a player who is about to start playing one. As a note on the quote above: Eldritch Blast allows spell resistance. As such the would not make it past a golem's immunity to magic.
Golems Immunity to magic:
Immunity to Magic (Ex)
A golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below...
|
|
I was just reviewing what people have said about warlocks...
I hate to hound you but would you mind stoping by the STAP PbP discussion and let us know how things are going? Thanks...
|
Depends entirely on the game you're in.
If you have a few big encounters a day, the Wizards and Sorcerers are gonna kick his butt. A 10th level Wizard throwing a Fireball does twice as much damage as a 10th level Warlock *and* can metamagic the heck out of it (although he'll get better bang for his buck metamagicking Scorching Rays, obviously).
On a day where you have a dozen smaller encounters, the 10th level Wizard is going to be down to throwing daggers and alchemist's fire, while the 10th level Warlock's little 5d6 blast is gonna be banging away like the Energizer Bunny.
The Wizard or Sorcerer will be vastly more useful in nine out of ten encounters, due to the enormous variety of spells they can access, compared to the relatively miniscule number of Invocations that a Warlock of similar level will have. Use Magic Device helps a little bit there, but Caster Level remains an issue, as well as cost, and it's not like anyone is going to be able to keep a straight face by saying the Warlock is overpowered because he can make good use of a Bard skill...
A large downside to the Warlock, IMO, is the lack of variation. At the end of the day, you'll be a flying invisible blast-thrower, and maybe you'll mix it up by taking Battle Caster and wearing Mithril Full Plate, just to see the look on people's faces, but really, that's about it. It's a very reliable class, but not one with a lot of depth.
I particularly noticed that around 15th level, there stopped being things I was interested in. None of the Dark Invocations appealed to me at all!
I was just reviewing what people have said about warlocks...I hate to hound you but would you mind stoping by the STAP PbP discussion and let us know how things are going? Thanks...
Got it. Be right there!
My only concern has been the touch attack portion of the Eldritch Blast. In my mind that would make a hit pretty sure (hard to screw up). No problems on that account?
|
My first and only experience with the warlock was an Unseelie Fey human warlock. I got to see her at varying levels, 1st, 4th, 17th, epic, because that was all this guy would play. And the constant touch attacks, ridiculous bluff/diplomancy, shatter and baleful polymorph at will got downright sickening. Could be because this was not a team player in the slightest, but I would be very picky about who I let play one in my game.
|
My only concern has been the touch attack portion of the Eldritch Blast. In my mind that would make a hit pretty sure (hard to screw up). No problems on that account?
By the middle levels, it's unlikely that the Warlock will miss with an Eldritch Blast if he's taken the right feats. (One of which is Coordinated Shot from Heroes of Battle, BTW.) By that level, however, nearly all creatures have either SR (which is much more problematic than AC) or enough HP that the damage the Warlock does just isn't that significant.
The only problem I see from the DM's side of the screen is the other invocations, which can be a bit of a surprise from time to time. They'll break the occasional encounter, but so will a Power Attack.
From the player's side, however, I've found Warlock to be pretty boring. You don't have the AC or HP to close with nasty opponents and expect to survive and you have only a few tricks that only change occasionally. After playing a Warlock for quite a while, I'm done with it now; it's pretty boring in the mid- to long-term.
I tend to like my stuff a little easier to manage. Would making the class's Eldritch Blast be against AC not touch AC and limiting their spell use to '1 use of a specific spell like ability every two rounds' (not including eldritch blast of course) be to "class breaking"?
|
|
I tend to like my stuff a little easier to manage. Would making the class's Eldritch Blast be against AC not touch AC and limiting their spell use to '1 use of a specific spell like ability every two rounds' (not including eldritch blast of course) be to "class breaking"?
I think that would drop Warlock from "viable, if not very interesting in the long term" to "not viable". IME, since touch armor class is listed in all the regular monster descriptions, using it isn't onerous. As a player of a Warlock, I'd often announce my attack as "18 against touch armor class", when early enough in a fight that I didn't know what that AC might be.
The other SLAs really weren't the sorts of things that would break an encounter by multiple uses. When confronted with a bottomless chasm, the ability to dimension door once every twelve seconds is almost exactly the same as the ability to use the same ability every six seconds. I think that such a restriction is complication without much benefit.
I think that would drop Warlock from "viable, if not very interesting in the long term" to "not viable". IME, since touch armor class is listed in all the regular monster descriptions, using it isn't onerous. As a player of a Warlock, I'd often announce my attack as "18 against touch armor class", when early enough in a fight that I didn't know what that AC might be.
The other SLAs really weren't the sorts of things that would break an encounter by multiple uses. When confronted with a bottomless chasm, the ability to dimension door once every twelve seconds is almost exactly the same as the ability to use the same ability every six seconds. I think that such a restriction is complication without much benefit.
But an 18 Ranged Touch Attack would hit a Balor or a Solar or pretty much anything I can think of. Highest creatures touch AC I have found (so far) is 16. A monkey can hit a ranged touch attack AC of 16 with flung poo ~25% of the time.
And as to the "one use / 2 rds" that is just to prevent one trick ponying. But I appreciate the feedback.
|
|
4) alignment restrictions. I hate alignments and alignment restrictions in general, it's my number one pet peeve about D&D, but I especially hate classes that seem to encourage players to play a certain alignment (must be lawful good anyone?). Having a class that almost seems to encourage players to play evil characters is no better.
This I strongly agree with. Warlocks *might* derive their powers from Fiendish sources, but Devils count as Fiends and are very Lawful (and, indeed, sound *far* more likely to make pacts with mortals who want to be Warlocks than Demons!). They also might derive their powers from Fey (in which case Chaotic is fine, but Evil?) or even Celestial sources!
The must be Chaotic or Evil thing is just limiting, much like the Bard, Monk, Barbarian, etc. alignment restrictions (those for the Paladin and for Clerics at least make some sort of sense).
But an 18 Ranged Touch Attack would hit a Balor or a Solar or pretty much anything I can think of. Highest creatures touch AC I have found (so far) is 16. A monkey can hit a ranged touch attack AC of 16 with flung poo ~25% of the time.
And as to the "one use / 2 rds" that is just to prevent one trick ponying. But I appreciate the feedback.
Foe me it doesn't seem that bad. Ranged attacks have the issues of firing into melee penalties and cover penalties. So a Warlock firing into melee without a real clear shot because his friends are in the way is at a -8 to hit. Yeah I know it's still a touch attack and yes it's better than an archer doing the same thing, but it still complicates things. The Warlock could take multiple feats to reduce it down to a -2 or I think even no minuses but I believe at the cost of four feats which would be a hefty investment. They end up really being kind of a one trick pony at times so I wouldn't hinder their one trick.
Foe me it doesn't seem that bad. Ranged attacks have the issues of firing into melee penalties and cover penalties. So a Warlock firing into melee without a real clear shot because his friends are in the way is at a -8 to hit. Yeah I know it's still a touch attack and yes it's better than an archer doing the same thing, but it still complicates things. The Warlock could take multiple feats to reduce it down to a -2 or I think even no minuses but I believe at the cost of four feats which would be a hefty investment. They end up really being kind of a one trick pony at times so I wouldn't hinder their one trick.
A warlock firing into melee would have a -4 to hit. With to feats spent he could have an additional +1 if within 30' and his normal attack if beyond that (30-60').
Point Blank Shot [General]
Benefit
You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.
Special
A fighter may select Point Blank Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Precise Shot [General]
Prerequisite
Point Blank Shot.
Benefit
You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard -4 penalty on your attack roll.
Special
A fighter may select Precise Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats.
4) alignment restrictions. I hate alignments and alignment restrictions in general, it's my number one pet peeve about D&D, but I especially hate classes that seem to encourage players to play a certain alignment (must be lawful good anyone?). Having a class that almost seems to encourage players to play evil characters is no better.This I strongly agree with. Warlocks *might* derive their powers from Fiendish sources, but Devils count as Fiends and are very Lawful (and, indeed, sound *far* more likely to make pacts with mortals who want to be Warlocks than Demons!). They also might derive their powers from Fey (in which case Chaotic is fine, but Evil?) or even Celestial sources!
The must be Chaotic or Evil thing is just limiting, much like the Bard, Monk, Barbarian, etc. alignment restrictions (those for the Paladin and for Clerics at least make some sort of sense).
I already told my player that I nixed the alignment restrictions as they made little sense.
|
|
But an 18 Ranged Touch Attack would hit a Balor or a Solar or pretty much anything I can think of. Highest creatures touch AC I have found (so far) is 16. A monkey can hit a ranged touch attack AC of 16 with flung poo ~25% of the time.
And as to the "one use / 2 rds" that is just to prevent one trick ponying. But I appreciate the feedback.
Rather than considering high-level play first, lets take a look at 5th level. (5th level chosen because most people think this is the level at which the relative advantage of the Warlock is greatest in combat.) At this level, touch armor classes run in the 10-13 range and regular armor classes run in the 16-20 range (approximately). For the purposes of this, I'll model on the basis of an AC of 18/12.
A warlock will probably be around a +6 to hit at that level (16 dex, BAB +3) and will thus hit AC 12 75% of the time. The 3d6 damage done (mean 10.5) will thus average 7.875 HP/turn.
A ranger at that same level will be about a +9 to hit with his bow, or a +7 when shooting twice with Rapid Shot (16 Dex, +5 BAB, Masterwork Comp Bow for +3 STR). He will hit 60% of the time with a single shot or 50% of the time with two shots. That is a mean of 4.5 HP with one shot or 7.5 HP with two shots against an AC of 18.
(Note that I've left out considering the vast majority of feats, buffs, and magic items. They don't change the analysis much, but feel free to run the numbers yourself if you disagree.)
This is a minor advantage to the Warlock, clearly, but this is the peak of the Warlock's relative power. Try the same analysis at 4th level (when the Warlock has only 2d6 of blast) or 6th level (when the Ranger gets a third attack) and the Ranger will have the advantage. Compare it to the typical Barbarian or Wizard if you want to see real damage output.
Now, the Warlock clearly does some things better than other classes. But then that's true of those other classes as well. The question is whether the class will change the game in such a way as to not be fun. It might in some campaigns, but it's highly unlikely that the damage output of the Warlock will be the cause.
Might I suggest looking at the Will-o-Wisp for an insane touch AC?
And as far as hitting a balor or solar: so what? Are they sacred cows now? There's this nifty thing called Spell Resistance that is far, far more problematic for warlocks and keeps them from running off with the game even in their wildest dreams.
As far as limiting the warlock's abilities to once per two rounds, I can only say one thing:
The stated intent was to stop them from being one trick ponies. I guess by making them change up the abilities they use each round? The problem is that "one trick pony" is the warlock's definition. That's all they've got. If you try to take that away from them, you will see many warlocks crying at their very real uselessness shortly before their heads are ripped from their bodies. As Doug said, compare the warlock to the wizard, or better yet the sorcerer, for damage out put. "But they're limited by spells per day! A warlock isn't!" Then look at a damned barbarian. Even outside of rage, which is an increasingly rarer event as the levels stack up, the charging Power Attack potential of those mosntrosities is near deific. Since we're using Completes, factor in Leap Attack if you want a real migrane.
And thank you, Doug, for the damage analysis. Claims that warlocks deal more damage on average than other classes simply because they roll vs. touch AC are bogus. At low levels, the warlock will miss a substantial amount of the time. I've DM'd one from 1st up to 5th. He was hardly guaranteed to hit.
A warlock might, might steal the show at around level 5. At any other time, forget it.
I wasn't suggesting they do more damage then another class.
I just am abit uncomfortable with them. But I thank you for your feed back.
I am just trying to find a way to challenge the warlock without killing them or the rest of the party. I don't plan to have many high SR creatures attacking them. And I guess to help make sure that it isn't all one trick that is annoying to me and frustrating to them when it doesn't work (being their one trick and all) I will talk with the person before their warlock comes into play and make sure I know where they are heading and that they take a couple of my suggestions. I don't want to ruin their fun but nor do I want to have them ruin my fun.
I wouldn't be so concerned (as I like the class) but the person is known for being a pain. They think they know how things work (this countries laws work like this... Really? I, as the DM, might have a different idea. Maybe you should ask once and a while) and that they are brilliant. And of course they automatically think good is being stupid and evil is money-hungry backstabbing son-of-a-b**** evil. So thus all my concern that I look at it from all different angles. (They think smart = selfish.)
Any suggestions on things I should look out for? (Both things that will make it no fun for them and things that will be hard for me to deal with.)
|
|
"No fun for the player" is mostly based around the limited number of tricks. You get something new around 2 out of 3 levels (between invocations, feats, and class abilities), and it limits your options pretty heavily. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."
For the GM, you'll want to remember the invocations chosen. When the PC can shatter at will (the weight limit will rather quickly include most doors), limited dimension door at will, or gain a +6 to several of his social skills, things can break in strange ways.
Make sure you know which books the player will be choosing invocations from; there are invocations in three or four books (though I think the best of them are in Complete Arcane).
Remember that most Spell-Like Abilities (SLAs) take a standard action to use, which means no attacks in the round that the character is using such abilities.
Understand how the various SLA metamagic feats work and how they interact with the invocations that enhance the Eldritch Blast. An Eldritch Blast with Eldritch Spear is a equivalent to a second level ability, for instance. This affects the level at which it can be Quickened by Quicken SLA or Maximized by Maximize SLA.
Remember that one of the great strengths of the class is Use Magic Device. At medium levels, the character will be able to use nearly any magic item, including wands and scrolls. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it give the character some flexibility.
But keep track of what is in each of the character's hands. If you are holding a wand of Benign Transposition in one hand and a wand of Lesser Vigor in the other hand, you don't have any hands free for an Eldritch Blast. You need to either drop an item or take an action to sheathe it.
And, since the character is probably most effective as a ranged attacker, make sure you remember the penalties for shooting into melee (-4), shooting past cover (-4), and shooting into a grapple (random target is hit). Note that the penalty for shooting into melee stacks with the cover penalty and that if you don't have the right feat your allies provide cover if they're in the wrong place. Since the warlock usually hangs out at the back, your allies are usually in the wrong place.
And, since the character is probably most effective as a ranged attacker, make sure you remember the penalties for shooting into melee (-4), shooting past cover (-4), and shooting into a grapple (random target is hit). Note that the penalty for...
Yeah that was what I was trying to say but you said it better. It seems like you always have to shoot into melle and getting a clear shot can be tough. It take three feats to get it down to -2, Point Blank, Precise SHot and Sharp-shooter (I think there is a fouth one that will get it down to zero but I can't find it at the moment). I play a Sorcerer that uses a lot of Ray spells and have Point Blank and Precise Shot and still miss periodically (probably more so that the Dwarven fighter).
I found the best way to challenge the warlock I DM'd for was to get something big and nasty up close where his fragile hit points were in danger. As mentioned, warlocks are like archers (and mages to an extent). They like to pick a nice safe spot and shoot from there, so that their frailties don't come into play.
Of course, warlocks get quite a few mobility boosters (such as spider climb, fell flight, and flee the scene). But if they don't take those invocations, and in the time before they get those invocations, sending getting up close and personal with an ogre is scary. As Doug said, warlocks tend to hang out in the back and stay away from fights. So ambushes are particularly scary, when they don't have time to move into those safe positions.
Also, dungeons with relatively low clearance can spell trouble even for a warlock with fell flight or spider climb. Those abilities won't save them from a rending troll if the ceiling's only twelve feet high (this, of course, takes for granted that the party's front line is somehow unable to stop the troll, perhaps because it came up from behind the party).
Fiendish creatures are also a good idea. By that, I mean the template. One of the qualities it grants is spell resistance. It's usually not high, but you're doubling the rolls the warlock has to make. Failure of either totally foils his attack. Fiendish creatures tend be pretty easy to drop into an adventure, too.
At higher levels, golems are good dampers. As previously noted, eldritch blast flat out doesn't work on them. And of course, SR-bearing creatures become more and more common as the levels accumulate, which becomes the true AC the warlock has to deal with.
Another means of dealing with the warlock is more tactical. You can put little minions around a BBEG that would be fairly easy, but time-consuming, fodder for the warlock. The rest of the party, which actually has big abilities like charging power attack smites and 10d6 fireballs can dish it out with Uber McEvil while the warlock piddles with his goons. But, the warlock gets to feel like he's contributing; his actions are having noticeable effects. At the same time, it keeps the warlock's small but constant stream of eldritch blast damage from finishing off McEvil before he's had time to throw the Death Lever of Ultimate Nasty Doom (or whatever; that's not really a method of foiling the warlock, but it could be a good strategy nonetheless).
An RP element might be to drop a paladin into the game who's after the warlock, even if said warlock is good aligned and maybe even if they don't have a fiendish taint to them. The paladin can detect evil, but he can't detect the source of the warlock's powers. Further, he may simply think the warlock is masking his abilities. Considering the personality of the player you've described, it shouldn't be too hard for a paladin to find a reason to want to smite him. Again, it's not really a mechanical method of foiling the warlock, but it could be fun.
challenge a warlock w/ another warlock. Also remeber swarms of lower level minons( where's K.C.) and grapple. Of all things I hate, Grapple is number 1. Warlock is an exellent class if you have the 4 basic monster food groups and need a 5th, heal with wands, solid Cha skills, and can hang back w/ the wiz/sor.
|
|
Chilling Tentacles makes the Warlock an effective battlefield controller. Something about being able to throw up Evard's Black Tentacles at will. Word of Changing let's him turn all your foes into bunnies, or keep trying until they roll a one on the Fort save. Let's also not forget Devour Magic.
I just recommend you be aware of who you allow to play a warlock. It can be a boon to the party, and it can be a headache.
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.
The cost of writing spell into your spellbook skyrockets.
The wizard loses XP for making items to help themselves or their party.
And as we know from 4E, managing your spells is NOT FUN.
I'm DMing an online game with a 5th-7th level warlock in it right now, and I think he's been pretty balanced. He has some neat abilities, and is a reliable damage-doer, but hasn't by any means outshone the well-played wizard or druid--or the big hits put out by the samurai or the barbarian.
If you're complaining about the power of dark invocations at high levels, keep in mind that this is where wizards and clerics are throwing about mass harm, destruction, time stop, delayed blast fireball, wish, and MDJ. Voracious dispelling might be scary, but surely a high level wizard who has knows what he's up against can find a tactic or spell-combo to foil it.
Anyhow, for those of you going to 4e--looks like warlocks are here to stay. And I don't think they are particularly boring in comparison to fighters or barbarians--just in comparison to wizards. Sorry, James, I'm with Saern on this one!
|
|
It seems like you always have to shoot into melle and getting a clear shot can be tough. It take three feats to get it down to -2, Point Blank, Precise SHot and Sharp-shooter (I think there is a fouth one that will get it down to zero but I can't find it at the moment).
Instead of, or in addition to, Sharpshooter, take a look at Coordinated Shot from Heroes of Battle; it negates cover provided by allies (though it does nothing for other cover).
|
|
And I don't think they are particularly boring in comparison to fighters or barbarians--just in comparison to wizards.
I much prefer fighters or barbarians, and I finally worked out why:
With a primary melee combatant, you need to prioritize the targets on the battlefield, then you need to decide how you're going to deal with them. Do you go directly for the BBEG, on the theory that the faster you can take him out the less damage you'll take, even if you have to accept an AoO or two? Do you take out the guy you're next to and cleave his buddy, even if they're just mooks, to reduce the number of attacks per turn? Or do you try some intermediate strategy? Do you charge to get the bonus to attack while taking the AC penalty? And how much power attack do you use?
With the Warlock, you pick one of (say) three or four SLAs and roll the dice. And maybe you adjust your position a bit.
Nearly all the interesting decisions come only during level-up. And you'd better not screw them up, because it'll be a while before you can even try to fix a mistake.
YMMV, of course.