|
We are playing through Legacy of Fire and have both an Alchemist and a Warlock.
The Warlock feels he is gimped compared to the Alchemist because the Alchemist is able to add his intelligence modifier to damage and has a splash radius.
The other argument is that the Alchemist is limited to a certain number of bombs per day (13 at 5th level with his build) whereas the Warlock is not.
The Warlock wants to add his Cha mod to damage.
Other opinions are needed!
Warlock should shut his mouth and get over the fact that he has unlimited usage of several abilities where as the alchemist is limited in everything he does.
But seriously if the warlock wants more damage he should take point blank shot, and at later levels empower spell-like ability, maximize spell-like ability, quicken spell-like ability and get some of those magical items in MiC that lets him add more d6s to his blast.
Warlocks aren't a DPS (damage-dealing) class in the first place, so complaining about not having enough damage is kind of silly. That's like the wizard complaining that he can't do enough damage with his first level school ability.
Warlocks specialize in battlefield control, anti-spellcaster tactics, and stealth.
That being said, it's not really going to hurt anything if you give him charisma to damage with his eldritch blast. Even if he pushes charisma to the limit, it'll still be less than taking Hellfire Warlock and the tricks that go with it, which was absolutely required to make Warlocks deal remotely useful damage.
|
|
You're just jealous of my mighty 3d6+6 alchemist bombs, Corey. =p
For clarification: I'm the alchemist mentioned in the initial post, and I don't see much of a problem letting our warlock do 3d6+Cha damage with every Eldritch Blast. This is coming, though, from someone who's using poisoned throwing daggers/arrows and dealing more damage to the monk through (not so) friendly fire than the opponents do, so make of that what you will.
I would like to point out that I think both classes are pretty broken; especially compared to the other damage dealers such as the Rogue and Ranger.
What
Tell the warlock to use warlock PrCs, namely Hellfire Warlock, if he really wants to do damage. That said, warlock isn't a big damage dealer, like Zurai said, and to be fair it's not a super powerful class anyways.
You're just jealous of my mighty 3d6+6 alchemist bombs, Corey. =p
For clarification: I'm the alchemist mentioned in the initial post, and I don't see much of a problem letting our warlock do 3d6+Cha damage with every Eldritch Blast. This is coming, though, from someone who's using poisoned throwing daggers/arrows and dealing more damage to the monk through (not so) friendly fire than the opponents do, so make of that what you will.
I would point out the alchemist has splash -- for minimum damage -- where as the warlocks blasts and chains and what not will not do minimum damage to extra opponents unless he rolls that poorly.
Also the splash damage has a save throw in addition to doing minimum damage.
I would like to point out that I think both classes are pretty broken; especially compared to the other damage dealers such as the Rogue and Ranger.
If by broken you mean extremely underpowered unless optimized properly, then I agree.
If by broken you mean extremely underpowered unless optimized properly, then I agree.I could spell out where you are wrong, at least on the part of the alchemist but it is not worth the breath other than simply stating that alchemist is far and away the most front heavy class to date in PFRPG.
I am only referring to the Warlock for being underpowered.
If by broken you mean extremely underpowered unless optimized properly, then I agree.I could spell out where you are wrong, at least on the part of the alchemist but it is not worth the breath other than simply stating that alchemist is far and away the most front heavy class to date in PFRPG.
Funny I would have given that title to the oracle (maybe the monk). I am however interested in your opinion on this matter. Please go on.
I'm with Carbon on this one: I personally think it's a mistake allowing a player to use a D&D class in a Pathfinder game. They're not balanced and you as a DM will regret it later if the character lives to see higher levels.
Now let me be clear... it's not the damage they do that's the problem. 1d6 every other level is not groundbreaking by any stretch of the imagination, even if it is ranged touch attack with no specified energy type. Without spell resistance, there is no defense if it hits you. And if the target does have spell resistance, he can take the acid blast version which circumvents that too. But like I said, it's not the damage, so if you're going to allow it, go ahead and let him add Charisma damage if it makes him happy. The problem with the warlock class is all the other powers they get. In our Runelords campaign, we have a warlock who has been with us since we started the game in 3.5... when we switched to Pathfinder, I allowed him to grandfather the warlock in, and I've regretted it ever since. He's 13th level now, and though he's not personally unstoppable, his tools allow the party to conquer every single obstacle in combat. It's not the damage... it's the other powers. Spider Climb. Dimension Door. Black Tentacles. Dispel Magic. All day, every round, no limits. Putting him up against a spell-casting opponent is not even a challenge anymore because if he chooses he can counterspell every round and keep the enemy wizard from casting... or he can just hit a spell-protected mage with his Voracious Dispelling every round and drop all their defenses one by one. Yes, he needs to make a successful dispel check, but with his skills and scores, it's not really difficult. The last four battles the group had with mages were a complete farce because the warlock just countered every spell they cast after the first few rounds. The only real defense is singling out the warlock as a target, which is somewhat petty so I really try to stop myself from doing that.
Anyway, if I were you, I'd recommend outlawing splat-book classes. They just don't translate well into the PF rules balance. I've tried it, and you won't dig it.
If one Warlock is wrecking your campaign, then you should not allow any full casters ever. Seriously, learn to adjust your scenarios on the fly.
I mean, even in combat, disrupting a spellcaster isn't that hard. Having someone ready an action to damage the spellcaster (easier to do with ranged hits) to force a Concentration check is the easiest way to do it, and it doesn't necessarily require Warlock (though they do it decently).
Anything Tier 3 and below should fit just fine. Wizards are still tier 1. Sorcerers are still tier 2. Learn to deal.
|
Funny I would have given that title to the oracle (maybe the monk). I am however interested in your opinion on this matter. Please go on.
Well I think it strays a bit left of the actual topic at hand here so maybe it would best be handled in a separate thread. I will compose something to this effect later tonight.
Funny I would have given that title to the oracle (maybe the monk). I am however interested in your opinion on this matter. Please go on.Well I think it strays a bit left of the actual topic at hand here so maybe it would best be handled in a separate thread. I will compose something to this effect later tonight.
Much thanks, I look forward to it.
I am gonna agree with Maveric here. Unless;ess you watch him closely and change alot of things to take him into account the warlock will totally screw your game. The invocations are at times very, very unbalancing and they can totally derail a game if your not very careful.
We reached a compromise where he won't add cha to damage, but get 1 invocation/level instead of the 12 over 20 levels it is by default.
Dude I gotta say, this is a bad idea. Others may disagree, but your really gonna unbalance your game like that. 20 at will all day spells? You just put alot more work for yourself like that I think.
Give him the cha damage boost, but do not do this.
We reached a compromise where he won't add cha to damage, but get 1 invocation/level instead of the 12 over 20 levels it is by default.
You do realize this is by FAR the more dangerous option right? You've nearly doubled his options.
We reached a compromise where he won't add cha to damage, but get 1 invocation/level instead of the 12 over 20 levels it is by default.
Err ... if I were you, I'd rather he had the CHA bonus to damage. Honestly. I can't quite predict the level, but I do predict this guy's going to snowball. To echo several posters above, it's not the warlock's damage that's the real strength - it's the invocations.
I don't agree you shouldn't use a "D&D class" in pathfinder - the games are compatible. I'd let him play the warlock straight without worries. So he can't match the damage of the alchemist - both characters have other things going on...
|
|
Quick Clarification #2: Coridan's a fellow player in Legacy of Fire- he's playing a sorcerer (Fire Elemental bloodline), so our party has two pyromaniacs.
Full Disclosure Regarding 3.5 Classes in Pathfinder Games: I have a Crusader/modified Holy Liberator in our group's Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, and a Scout/potential Order of the Bow Initiate in Kingmaker, so I have to side with PlungingForward on that regard =p
Quick Clarification #2: Coridan's a fellow player in Legacy of Fire- he's playing a sorcerer (Fire Elemental bloodline), so our party has two pyromaniacs.
Full Disclosure Regarding 3.5 Classes in Pathfinder Games: I have a Crusader/modified Holy Liberator in our group's Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, and a Scout/potential Order of the Bow Initiate in Kingmaker, so I have to side with PlungingForward on that regard =p
Meh, I'm alright with a good part of 3.5 coming into pathfinder -- but if I'm the GM I'm going to limit parts and I honestly wouldn't want to hear any whining about it (discussion is possible -- just respect the final answer when you get it).
Meh, I'm alright with a good part of 3.5 coming into pathfinder -- but if I'm the GM I'm going to limit parts and I honestly wouldn't want to hear any whining about it (discussion is possible -- just respect the final answer when you get it).
Indeed. Nor would I consider Pathfinder being "powered up" to be a reason to allow things I normally wouldn't (such as huge swathes of the Spell Compendium). If anything, the 3.5/Pathfinder split was a mercy to DMs because we now have an easier time of disallowing parts of 3.5 we never liked in the first place.
More on topic, part of the design philosophy of Pathfinder was to make the core classes a little better overall, to make them more comparable to some of the classes that came along later. It seems counterproductive, therefore, to power up various 3.5 base classes simply because they're from 3.5 and "pathfinder = more power." Keep an eye on the warlock, and don't be afraid to "alter the deal" if the experiment's not working as planned.
We reached a compromise where he won't add cha to damage, but get 1 invocation/level instead of the 12 over 20 levels it is by default.Err ... if I were you, I'd rather he had the CHA bonus to damage. Honestly. I can't quite predict the level, but I do predict this guy's going to snowball. To echo several posters above, it's not the warlock's damage that's the real strength - it's the invocations.
I don't agree you shouldn't use a "D&D class" in pathfinder - the games are compatible. I'd let him play the warlock straight without worries. So he can't match the damage of the alchemist - both characters have other things going on...
Totally agree with this entire post. Increasing his available invocations by 66% is an insanely massive buff, far, FAR, FAR outstripping a measly +4 or +5 damage from Cha to eldritch blast damage, even if he's playing a glaivelock (ie, using eldritch glaive to get full attacks with eldritch blast). Giving him one invocation per level will absolutely 99% guaranteed (remaining 1% being if he chooses, intentionally or not, the absolute worst powers at every single level; honestly, I'm not even sure there are enough bad powers to outweigh the extra versatility) make him overpowered.
And at the same time, my group plays with all WotC 3.5 classes in Pathfinder and have done so since the beta. Want to know how many of those WotC 3.5 classes are being used in our current campaign? 0. Not because there's any rule against it, but because the Pathfinder classes are just plain better than 95% of the classes from 3.5 (stuff like Archivist excluded). Also, generally cooler.
Keep an eye on the warlock, and don't be afraid to "alter the deal" if the experiment's not working as planned.
Actually this would be a great fluff point too -- he's a warlock right? How did he come to have his powers? Did he sign a contract or something? If so you could actually have him *resummon* the thing that gave him his powers and let him try to negotiate with it over what he gets to do. This way the contract is something in game in addition to out of game and you have a fun (if needing care to be used) way of interacting with the character instead of just letting it be a "mechanical" thing.