WHy is Warlock 'Tier 4'?

[Kenneth]

and what exactly can help them get up to 'tier 3'?

I am just wodnering becuase for my own D&D setting i am trying to make every class 'tier 3' minimum. right now my warlcok is renamed Eldritch (for setting lore) but is verys imilar to MammonAzrael's warlcok make over int he hmebrewed forum, minus the seperate progressionf or essence and blast shape invocation and adding in the old walrock DR and resist every so many levels.


anywyas, what exactly will it take to make the warlock 'tier 3'?

[nyarlathotep]

Access to a larger variety of powers. So basically give them an invocation every level and homebrew a few more utility and control based invocations. They already have plenty of mobility powers (spider climb, fell flight etc), but are sorely lacking in real battlefield control (only having a terrible summon swarm variant and a rather good black tentacles variant) and have only one ability related to social interactions. Something that could help would be telekinesis as a greater or dark invocation and grease as a least invocation.

[FMArthur]

They need versatility. The ability to swap invocations daily would be enough if the invocations themselves were more varied.

Instead of doing that, if they could learn just a small number of spells that would also accomplish it. Like giving them the ability to take Evocation or Necromancy spells in place of invocations at certain levels. Like at 4th level you could replace a known invocation with a 0th or 1st level Evo/Necro spell, at 8th level you could get a 2nd or 3rd level spell, at 13th you could get a 4th or 5th, and at 18th you could get a 6th or 7th. This is just spaced out according to Least/Lesser/Greater/Dark progression, but you could space it out more evenly to mimic a behind-progression Sorcerer (I would always keep it a spell level behind).

[Big Fau]

First and foremost, separate Eldritch Essence, Blast Shape, and normal invocations. The fact that a Warlock has to divide Invocations know between the three types is really painful. Couple with this a seperate progression for BS, EE, and normal invocations, and the class becomes more versatile.

Second, revise several of the invocations. Some of them do not help at all, others are in need of some tweaking, and a rare few are viewed as overpowered (although one of them is a genuine campaign breaker, the rest are generally weak).

Third: Scaling. Warlocks have a very poor scaling system built into the class, but then you look at the actual class features and see garbage like DR 5 at 20th level.



An easy method is to gestalt the Warlock with either the Binder or a meldshaper class.

[Elric VIII]

I would say bump it up to 4-6 skill points/level.

Also, provide a different progression for Blast Shape/Eldritch Essence invocations and normal invocations (similar tot he way DFA gets invocations and breath effects separately).

Maybe add a few of the DFA invocations to the Warlock's list as well (non-dragon themes ones).

[Kenneth]

Yes, i totalyy agree that blast invocations and 'regular; invocations should have a seperate progression. honestly I slapped myself for never thinking of that earlier.

as for DR.. i fail to see how DR5 is worthless. maybe it sjust me but a dr is dr and thats a good thing.


eldritch (my warlock) already ahs 4 Skill points per level, the whole 2 per level seems ludicrous to me, only int based classes get 2 as if i ave them 4 then they would be 'skill-monkeys' and i just don't want that happening.

grease as a least is genius! you just won a cupcake!

also.. i have no idea what book dragn fire adept is form, its like one of the 4 3.5 books I do not have LOL. (i refused to buy anything form eberron as the wqhole setting is what i detest about RPGs in general)

as for scaling their resiatnce scale as thus for my 3 at 3rd level an at 20th levle they get resist 20 ( this is to every energy type by the way)


that is pretty nice, and makes up for their other wise poor ref save.

but so what i am getting is the biggest buff teh warlcok could get is getting his invocations an blast invocationin a seperate progression, thats an easy as hell hell fix, and one fo those things that should have been obvious to do from the start.. why did wizards do such a bad job?

[Douglas]

why did wizards do such a bad job?
Because they hadn't figured out yet that "at will" isn't really that big a deal for most combat abilities.

[Psyren]

Just to note that T4 isn't "bad." A party of T4s can get through most CR-appropriate challenges with minimal DM assistance.

But as for WHY it is T4, read this. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4874.0) But I'll summarize:

- Not enough invocations
- Invocations power ceiling is too low (most Darks clock in around 6-7th, while the top monsters are throwing around 8ths and 9ths.)
- Painfully low damage output from the base class.
- At-will magic is really only relevant if the DM is exceeding recommended encounters/day, but even then the party will turn in early to regain their big guns.

[candycorn]

Access to a larger variety of powers. So basically give them an invocation every level and homebrew a few more utility and control based invocations. They already have plenty of mobility powers (spider climb, fell flight etc), but are sorely lacking in real battlefield control (only having a terrible summon swarm variant and a rather good black tentacles variant) and have only one ability related to social interactions. Something that could help would be telekinesis as a greater or dark invocation and grease as a least invocation.

At level 8, you can:
Chain a Fort vs. Blind to an entire enemy group

At level 11, you can:
Chain a Fort vs. Nausea to an entire enemy group
Chain a Reflex vs. Knockback to an entire enemy group (damage, forced movement-thus AoO's, and the prone condition)

At level 16, you can:
Chain a Will vs Stun to an entire group (Binding Blast, Comp Mage)
Chain 2 Negative Levels to an entire group

In addition, their insect plague is rather good, as your Cha mod adds to the plague's DC (Fort DC 12 + Cha or Nausea, along with modest damage and bypassing of DR/magic)

These are all crowd control, and are rather effective.

[Wyntonian]

I swear to Heironius I've seen a thread like this before.... Lemme look.

[gkathellar]

Because they aren't quite good enough at the things they do, and they don't do enough things. Right now a warlock is Cyclops — it has a cool power and is useless besides its cool power. It needs to be Wolverine* — have a couple of cool powers and some general skills besides that for personality.


I swear to Heironius I've seen a thread like this before.... Lemme look.

It degenerated pretty quickly. Let's not bring it up.

*Mind you, I hate Wolverine.

[Wyntonian]

Well, I was going to link to it, but I guess not. It did melt down to a flame war pretty dang fast.

[sonofzeal]

Just to note that T4 isn't "bad." A party of T4s can get through most CR-appropriate challenges with minimal DM assistance.

But as for WHY it is T4, read this. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4874.0) But I'll summarize:

- Not enough invocations
- Invocations power ceiling is too low (most Darks clock in around 6-7th, while the top monsters are throwing around 8ths and 9ths.)
- Painfully low damage output from the base class.
- At-will magic is really only relevant if the DM is exceeding recommended encounters/day, but even then the party will turn in early to regain their big guns.
Counterpoint as to why they're T4 and not T5, given the preceeding...

While damage output is low, it's thoroughly reliable. I've seen several fights that got resolved only because the Warlock could chip away at the thing round by round. The biggest one I can remember was against something like a Roper, except Gargantuan - with huge AC, huge reach, tones of immunities, and no nead to move, there was little the rest of the party could do to it. The Warlock was only doing base Warlock damage, but they were doing it successfully every round and it was a hell of a lot better than everyone pulling out crossbows.

This was a low or lower-mid op game, of course, which is most of what I play. But in these games, the reliability of ranged touch attacks on a 3/4 BAB chassis makes Warlock defensible. Melee warriors often miss, especially if they're using Power Attack. SoD/SoL spells often get saved against. Many creatures have immunities that render this or that or the other ineffective. Whatever you're expecting to contribute to the fight, in an average game where there's no Divination-spam for total foreknowledge then it's a safe bet that you'll be less effective in some fights than in others. Unless you're a Warlock. Nothing that I'm aware of short of AMF, or something that has both SR and Acid Resistance, slows them down.

They also benefit from All The World's a Nail syndrome to a degree. Their bag of tricks is small, but some of them have a reasonably wide range of use if you're creative, and most Warlocks I've seen get very creative indeed with the application of their Invocations. Locked door? Shoot out the hinges, lock, or even entire door with EB! With a fairly average set of invocations, it becomes very difficult to block to path of a Warlock without frequent use of AMF, and even then there's Vitrolic Essence. The same could be said for Tier 1, 2, and even some T3 classes... but very few T4 or lower classes can make that claim.

Not to say it's a great class, but it's a decent and reliable one. In the lvl 5-10 range, and in lower-mid op games, which is where and how I usually end up playing, they're competent if not exceptional for secondary DPR and utility. They're also very newbie-friendly, an excellent first class with a little help picking Invocations.

[gkathellar]

Right. Tier 4s can be very good, in the right game, and even Tier 3s don't overshadow them all that much. It's just that a lot of people sort of assume Tier 3 = Correct in all circumstances.

[Snowbluff]

I am more interested in why people don't care about helping people build locks. I've made 2 threads for the same thing, but one said warlock/eldritch theurge, and the other was just about AoE spells. Guess which got more replies.

[thompur]

Even though blasting is weak, eldritch blasting is very weak. I would say either make EB 1d6/level, or at least offer a feat that increases EB damage.

Also, there is Wall of Perilous Flame as another BC invocation.

[candycorn]

Even though blasting is weak, eldritch blasting is very weak. I would say either make EB 1d6/level, or at least offer a feat that increases EB damage.

Also, there is Wall of Perilous Flame as another BC invocation.

Nah, damage is incidental. It doesn't need to be fantastic. Double the duration of the 1 round status effects that invocations put out, and that would provide a solid boost to the class's power. Alternately, allow them to base save DC's on Dexterity.

Trying to boost warlock by boosting EB is like trying to boost wizard by expanding the list of wizard bonus feats. It may be nice, but it's hardly what makes the class good. Any real upgrade of the class is going to come from Invocations, not EB.

[Rejakor]

If you don't want to homebrew new invocations, simply give them access to a spell to cast at will every 2 levels in addition to their invocation progression, with the following caveats; must be from the transmutation, necromancy, or divination schools; must have a duration, and the duration must be 1 min/lvl or longer; and must not require a costly material component. If the warlock casts it once and then casts it again, only the effects of the most recent casting apply (so for example he could cast bull's strength on himself or his friend - not both at the same time).

EDIT: The warlock eldritch blast is supposed to be good. Not amazing, but decent. So, double the eldritch blast the base warlock gets. That gives the warlock 2/3rds CL d6, which at least is better than a freakin' reserve feat.

The debuffs and stuff are cool, but tossing around hellfire that people care about shouldn't be the province of a prestige class.

EDIT EDIT: Not that there shouldn't be a prestige class for that. Just that the prestige class should do what it says it does, give you an AWESOME EB for a price, not make EB worthwhile at all in the first place.

[MeeposFire]

Even though blasting is weak, eldritch blasting is very weak. I would say either make EB 1d6/level, or at least offer a feat that increases EB damage.

Also, there is Wall of Perilous Flame as another BC invocation.

Actually I would like to not increase damage but increase usage (though I think it should stay at 1d6 every other level rather than starting that way and then changing) by making it usable on attack actions and full attack actions.

[candycorn]

Actually I would like to not increase damage but increase usage (though I think it should stay at 1d6 every other level rather than starting that way and then changing) by making it usable on attack actions and full attack actions.

I'd prefer: at level 10 and level 20, a warlock may fire an additional blast when they use an eldritch blast.

That would keep it at a standard action, and additional beams wouldn't require greater actions.

[MeeposFire]

I'd prefer: at level 10 and level 20, a warlock may fire an additional blast when they use an eldritch blast.

That would keep it at a standard action, and additional beams wouldn't require greater actions.

I would prefer making it work with the many shot line and similar feats. That way you can invest feats and make your powers really work for you and you can still attack with a standard action.

[candycorn]

I would prefer making it work with the many shot line and similar feats. That way you can invest feats and make your powers really work for you and you can still attack with a standard action.

I don't see that. Many shot is very specific to the weapons it allows. That would be like allowing Power Attack to apply to a Scorching Ray.

[MeeposFire]

I don't see that. Many shot is very specific to the weapons it allows. That would be like allowing Power Attack to apply to a Scorching Ray.

If we are talking about pipe dreams and house rules then I think it is fair to modify what I like. Besides ranged weapons need love in general especially non-bows so making many shot more applicable in general would be a boon.

[candycorn]

If we are talking about pipe dreams and house rules then I think it is fair to modify what I like. Besides ranged weapons need love in general especially non-bows so making many shot more applicable in general would be a boon.

I understand it's fair... I just see this as a complicated and drastic overhaul.

Out of simplicity, it would be easier to create new warlock feats than it would to attempt to overhaul the entire ranged combat system.

It's like altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere to cause it to produce snow that has less friction... versus installing better blades on the sled.

[MeeposFire]

I understand it's fair... I just see this as a complicated and drastic overhaul.

Out of simplicity, it would be easier to create new warlock feats than it would to attempt to overhaul the entire ranged combat system.

It's like altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere to cause it to produce snow that has less friction... versus installing better blades on the sled.

It isn't that difficult all you would have to do is make a small paragraph similar to what they did for mind arrows for the soul bow. Boom done. Replace soul bow with eldritch blast.

[candycorn]

It isn't that difficult all you would have to do is make a small paragraph similar to what they did for mind arrows for the soul bow. Boom done. Replace soul bow with eldritch blast.

"Manyshot and similar feats" is remarkably undefined. You've provided about as much guidance for the ability as... say... exists for Arcane Swordsage.

The easier and more elegant solution for upgrading Warlock... is upgrading warlock. Not expanding the spell-like ability to function with feats that benefit mundane weaponry.

You're trying to go about this in a complicated manner. If it was as "Boom done" as you say, you'd already have it fully statted and typed out. You know, like I did.

[LansXero]

Except that things like Eldritch Glaive already work with iteratives, and EB is considered a weapon-like spell already anyways.

[candycorn]

Except that things like Eldritch Glaive already work with iteratives, and EB is considered a weapon-like spell already anyways.

EG is a new power, printed, which alters the function of the ability.
Enter an invocation which applies multiple shots, and you're in business. It'd likely be a Blast Shape invocation. Lesser for just "full round action, apply iteratives". Greater if it's "any feat which applies to range attacks can apply to this ability".

[MeeposFire]

Except that things like Eldritch Glaive already work with iteratives, and EB is considered a weapon-like spell already anyways.

Glaive only works off of BAB not things like haste, rapid shot, and the like. However the fact it gives iteratives is why it is popular along with the claws if you allow those. Also being weapon like does not help much if you are trying to get more attacks since the attack granting stuff does not apply to weapon like spells in general.

[candycorn]

The main reason I advocate tying it to Invocations is simple. Say you can fire an EB as an attack action. You have a BAB of 11, and thus, have 3 attack actions in a full attack. Each one applies a shape invocation, let's say, chain. Let's also say we apply an essence invocation to each... First, Fort vs Nausea. Second, Reflex vs. Knockback and prone. Third, Will vs. Stun. Now add damage.

We've now forced every enemy to make a Fort, a reflex, and a Will save, and failure of any means that enemy can't act. Let's say the enemy needs to roll a 2 for the first, a 8 for the second, and a 12 for the third, to pass. You're looking at a 75% lockdown chance for the whole battle.

Now, apply iteratives as a Blast shape evocation.
Same thing, but it can't be chained. Now we can force one enemy to make 3 saves, or three enemies to make 1 save, but we can't make every enemy make 3 saves, with one failure = lose.

[Godskook]

The one that nobody has mentioned is the Warlock's ability to craft *EVERTHING*, which is Artificer tier(tier 1), but it comes so late that basing a build off it is difficult unless you're starting at lvl 12+, and even then, it breaks versimilitude to take crafting feats before your last 3 slots. By comparison, Artificer gets that ability at level 1, with a metric ton of bonus feats and features to support his crafting habit.

Like Healer's Gate, the ability comes too late to warrant a tier change, but at Epic, Warlocks start moving towards very low tier 2.

[dspeyer]

First and foremost, separate Eldritch Essence, Blast Shape, and normal invocations. The fact that a Warlock has to divide Invocations know between the three types is really painful. Couple with this a seperate progression for BS, EE, and normal invocations, and the class becomes more versatile.

I disagree.

The fix isn't separate progressions but more overall invocations. At present, warlocks get an invocation of their choice roughly every other level. Keeping that but separating means you'd get an ordinary invocation every 6 levels. Blech.

On the flip side, increasing invocations and separating makes trouble at the new-level-known levels. Getting three dark invocations at level 16 is a bit excessive, but if the class requires you to take a blast shape then and wait two levels for a normal, that makes it hard to play a non-blasty warlock.

Off the top of my head:

{table]level|least|lesser|greater|dark
1|1
2|2
3|3
4|4
5|5
6|5|1
7|6|1
8|6|2
9|7|3
10|8|4
11|8|4|1
12|9|5|1
13|10|5|2
14|10|6|3
15|10|7|4
16|10|7|4|1
17|10|8|5|1
18|10|9|5|2
19|10|9|6|3
20|10|9|7|4[/table]

[Kenneth]

{table]level|Least|Lesser|Greater|True
1|1
2|1
3|1
4|1
5|2
6|2|1
7|2|1
8|2|1
9|2|1
10|3|1
11|3|2|1
12|3|2|1
13|3|2|1
14|3|2|1
15|4|2|1
16|4|3|2|1
17|4|3|2|1
18|4|3|2|1
19|4|3|2|1
20|5|3|2|2[/table]


{table]level|Least Eldritch|Lesser Eldritch|Greater Eldritch|True Eldritch
1|
2|1
3|1
4|1
5|1
6|1|
7|1|1
8|1|1
9|2|1
10|2|1
11|2|1|
12|2|1|
13|2|1|
14|2|2|1
15|2|2|1
16|3|2|1|
17|3|2|1|
18|3|2|1|
19|3|2|1|1
20|3|2|1|1[/table]

Ok here is the modfied progression for Eldritchs (Warlocks) in my world. The normal progression can be used for any type of invocation, normal, shape, or essence. while Eldritch can only be used for Essence and shape invocations. so instead of 12 total invocation of all 3 types, they get 12 of any type they want and 7 of just essence and shape invocations. And that is my purpose behind the very slow progression of the Eldritch invocations

[hex0]

I saw the notice of giving them spells and think instead giving them the Factotum's Arcane Dilletante ability but at either at -4 Warlock level or 1/2 Warlock level may help a bit.

By PRCing they get out of Tier 4 easily. Actually they are som4here above the middle of tier 4 in my opinion in the first place. A 2 dip in Chameleon for example works wonders.

[Tvtyrant]

The one that nobody has mentioned is the Warlock's ability to craft *EVERTHING*, which is Artificer tier(tier 1), but it comes so late that basing a build off it is difficult unless you're starting at lvl 12+, and even then, it breaks versimilitude to take crafting feats before your last 3 slots. By comparison, Artificer gets that ability at level 1, with a metric ton of bonus feats and features to support his crafting habit.

Like Healer's Gate, the ability comes too late to warrant a tier change, but at Epic, Warlocks start moving towards very low tier 2.

Aren't most crafting Warlocks mixed with Chameleon for access to the floating feat?

[Tvtyrant]

I have never seen a 13 minute gap for a double post before. Intriguing.

If you do some crafting using the magic item compendium you can combine items , which allows you to stack SA sources with EB sources. This can either be used to let you Prc out into something else after level 12 (Chameleon for lots of abilities say) or just boost your damage.

[Godskook]

Aren't most crafting Warlocks mixed with Chameleon for access to the floating feat?

Like Rainbow Warsnakes, you don't give the base class bonus points for cases where a prestige class is doing major lifting, at least in the standard tier listings. And that still actually starts hurting the "too late in the ECL" argument, cause you can't get both online till ECL 14, which often times in practice too late in the build to still have time to craft anything.

[Tvtyrant]

Like Rainbow Warsnakes, you don't give the base class bonus points for cases where a prestige class is doing major lifting, at least in the standard tier listings. And that still actually starts hurting the "too late in the ECL" argument, cause you can't get both online till ECL 14, which often times in practice too late in the build to still have time to craft anything.

I think there is a difference between a 2 level dip and a 10 level PrC that cripples you while you take it and only pays off on the final level. You could simply take Craft Wand and you would get plenty of use out of it due to the existence of the Trapsmith. Mmmm, wands of Fabricate and Wall of Stone.

[Gavinfoxx]

The Invoker homebrew is intended as a Tier 3 option...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153863

Same with the Ebon Initiate...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163297

Maybe try one of those instead?

[hex0]

Aren't most crafting Warlocks mixed with Chameleon for access to the floating feat?

Yes. And for Extra Invocation, etc. Or Martial Study. Or any feat that is weird, situational, or gets better based on your level.

Also Haste as a first level spell (copied from Trapsmith) make Chameleon 2 very handy for Warlocks.

[Godskook]

I think there is a difference between a 2 level dip and a 10 level PrC that cripples you while you take it and only pays off on the final level.

So you're arguing that if we changed Rainbow Servant to give that capstone at level 1 of the class, Warmage would then be tier 1?

[hex0]

So you're arguing that if we changed Rainbow Servant to give that capstone at level 1 of the class, Warmage would then be tier 1?

Well, PRCs use that +/- tier thingy. Warmage entry into Rainbow Servant is already 'up two or more tiers'. Moving the capstone down would be even more ridiculous.

[Lans]

Just give it more of what it got should get it to tier 3.

Just double the invocations, skills, DR, fast healing, damage, and expand the invocation list to include the dragonfire adept options. Should just about do it.

I've seen Dragonfire adept as tier 3, so we could take a look at that.

[MukkTB]

Tier 3+4 is fine for trying to balance a low op game. 4s can keep up with 3s just fine. It takes a bit more effort for the 4s but at the same time it opens more character concepts for them to play with.

[Aquillion]

The one that nobody has mentioned is the Warlock's ability to craft *EVERTHING*, which is Artificer tier(tier 1), but it comes so late that basing a build off it is difficult unless you're starting at lvl 12+, and even then, it breaks versimilitude to take crafting feats before your last 3 slots. By comparison, Artificer gets that ability at level 1, with a metric ton of bonus feats and features to support his crafting habit.

Like Healer's Gate, the ability comes too late to warrant a tier change, but at Epic, Warlocks start moving towards very low tier 2.Artificers have a lot of other very useful abilities to support their crafting (and magical-item-using) habit, though (metamagic spell trigger, their crafting pool, etc) -- some of those can be replicated via feats, but that digs even deeper into the Warlock's limited no-bonus-feat pool.

[Tvtyrant]

So you're arguing that if we changed Rainbow Servant to give that capstone at level 1 of the class, Warmage would then be tier 1?

No, I am saying that if Warmage had their casting and other useful abilities that could be easily boosted then they would be a higher tier. The Warlock has a number of actually useful abilities, and several of those can become quite potent with dips.

[Kenneth]

:( i disliek how this became a thread about why the atificer is so powerful..


how about more brainstorming about what it takes tog et a Warlock to 'tier 3'

and again i pose my quesiton (in larger text this time) what book is Dragonfire Adept from?

and what makes the Dragonfire Adept 'tier 3' and not the Warlock?

[sonofzeal]

:( i disliek how this became a thread about why the atificer is so powerful..


how about more brainstorming about what it takes tog et a Warlock to 'tier 3'

and again i pose my quesiton (in larger text this time) what book is Dragonfire Adept from?

and what makes the Dragonfire Adept 'tier 3' and not the Warlock?
It's from Dragon Magic.

It's Tier 3 mostly because it has a breath weapon that qualifies it for a number of really awesome feats normally reserved for Dragons, like Entangling Exhalation, which provides excellent Battlefield Control in addition to standard Warlock plinking/utility. Also they're Con-focused, which is always a plus, and get their shape/essence invocations separately from their main list.

[candycorn]

Wanna upgrade Warlock to Tier 3?

Pick one of these options:
1) Increase invocations known by 50%.
2) All invocations with a 1 round duration last 2 rounds instead.
3) Create a lesser Blast shape evocation that allows them to use their eldritch blast ability as attack action, rather than a standard action.

Add this option:
1) base saving throws for invocations off of Dexterity, or base range attacks for invocations off of charisma.

Poof, Tier 3.

[Kenneth]

wait.. you mean eldrtich blast isn't already an attack?

LOL so ive been playing them wrong at all times

like a BAB of +12+7+2 would give an Eldritch 3 attacks. but instead they are only suppsoed to be doing 1 blast a round?

also what do you think of for my speerate progressionf or normal invocations and shape and essence invocations?

[NeoSeraphi]

wait.. you mean eldrtich blast isn't already an attack?

LOL so ive been playing them wrong at all times

like a BAB of +12+7+2 would give an Eldritch 3 attacks. but instead they are only suppsoed to be doing 1 blast a round?

also what do you think of for my speerate progressionf or normal invocations and shape and essence invocations?

Yes. Unless you are using the Eldritch Glaive invocation, you may only fire one Eldritch Blast (at your highest attack bonus) per round.

[candycorn]

wait.. you mean eldrtich blast isn't already an attack?

LOL so ive been playing them wrong at all times

like a BAB of +12+7+2 would give an Eldritch 3 attacks. but instead they are only suppsoed to be doing 1 blast a round?Under current rules, correct. EB is a SLA, which is a standard action to activate. You can't use a Full Round action to apply iteratives to just any action. It needs to be the "attack" standard action. This isn't. It's the "use a SLA" action. A creature can no more activate 3 EB's on a full attack than it could activate 3 other SLA's, such as Wall of ice or magic missile.


also what do you think of for my speerate progressionf or normal invocations and shape and essence invocations?I'm in the camp that it's unneeded complexity. Just increase maneuvers learned by 50%, give the player full choice, and you're pretty well good.

[Redrat2k6]

I don't know why people have been ignoring the warlocks best ability. At level 12 the warlock gets Imbue Item that allows him to create any item without knowing the spell required. This includes scrolls and wands.

At level 12 a warlock can make any scroll on any spell list. Cleric spell? No problem.

That is some huge versatility that bumps up the warlock to tier 3 if not tier 2.

The only disadvantage of this ability is that it requires a standard action to cast or longer which eliminates spells like celerity and feather falls usefulness. I would say because of this the warlock could never be tier 1.

[Socratov]

a warlock is great at non SR opponents, only once they have only an ounce of it warlocks are useless... i think giving the warlock some buffs to dish out to allies would help his effectiveness during encounters where warlocks don't actually contribute...

[sonofzeal]

a warlock is great at non SR opponents, only once they have only an ounce of it warlocks are useless... i think giving the warlock some buffs to dish out to allies would help his effectiveness during encounters where warlocks don't actually contribute...
Er, Vitrolic Essence means laughing at SR. There's a reason it's the most popular essence.

[Telonius]

I am more interested in why people don't care about helping people build locks. I've made 2 threads for the same thing, but one said warlock/eldritch theurge, and the other was just about AoE spells. Guess which got more replies.

One big problem with giving advice on Warlock builds is that the advice is often very situational. With regular casters, and even with melee, there are a few dominant options that are almost always going to result in a stronger character. ("Don't lose caster levels," "Sword and Board is usually bad," etc.). True, you do have, "1 level of Binder, then go Hellfire," but even that would seem borderline cheesy if the class weren't already so starved for damage.

Half the Invocations are "it's stupid not to take this." About a quarter are useless. The remainder are "generally useless, unless." Unless it's a game involving lots of intrigue, unless the DM loves using enemies that use Darkness, unless you're okay with using undead minions, unless... Without knowing in advance what the DM is going to throw at them, it's hard to tell somebody what they should take.

Warlock also faces the unfortunate reality that it got almost no splatbook support after Complete Arcane. A couple PrCs in Complete Mage and Complete Champion. Two things that should have been there to begin with - Eldrtich Glaive (Dragon Magic) and Hellfire Warlock (Fiendish Codex 2). And that's about it. With every other class, almost every book gave you some sort of option you didn't have before.

Regarding Imbue Item, it is a really nice ability. The problem is it comes really, really late in the build. It would prevent you from ever finishing out a 10-level PrC (if you could find one you wanted). You also need to spend one of your (precious) feats on item creation if you're going that route. If you're looking to be powerful through craft-o-mancy, you have to compete with what Artificer can do. The comparison is really unfortunate, if what you're trying for is a Tier 3. But people's minds are going to jump right there, and Warlock is always going to look shoddy next to it.

[Person_Man]

We had this exact conversation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218322) a couple of months ago, and the replies were pretty much the same. As others have pointed out, the difference between Tiers is the amount of resources.

The Tier 4 Warlocks get:

Eldritch Blast
12 Invocations
Take 10 on UMD
UMD and social Skills (with 2 Skill Points per level)
Minor Energy Resistance and DR
Ability to create magic items (sorta)


The Tier 3 Dragonfire Adept (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=2) gets:

Breath Weapon
6 Breath Effects
8 Invocations
UMD and social Skills (with 4 Skill Points per level)
Minor bonuses/Feats/Immunities/DR


Comparing the two:

The Warlock Eldritch Blast typically targets 1 enemy per round, the Dragonfire breath weapon deals the same damage but typically targets multiple enemies per round.
The Warlock gets 12 Invocations (which include Eldritch Blast modifiers), and the Dragonfire Adept basically gets 14.
Skills are similar, but Dragonfire Adept gets 2 more Skill Points per level.
The extra minor bonuses are similar, but the Dragonfire Adept notably does not have any dead levels.


Like most Tier 4-6 classes, the Warlock basically just needs more stuff.

But more broadly, having At-Will abilities with no recharge or limited use mechanic encourages the player to do the same action every round, which in turn encourages the writer and play testers of the class to make their abilities weaker (ie, the basic most flaw behind most Tier 4 or lower classes).

If you're looking for a homebrew fix, I've been told that my Magitech Templar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9782788&postcount=1) is "what the Warlock should have been" - though obviously YMMV.

[MeeposFire]

The DFA also has access to perception skills (sense motive, search, spot, listen). That is nice in helping their verstility.

Breath weapons are supernatural and so can be effective on any opponent. Warlocks only have one option if spell resistance is a problem and then they have to hope they are not immune to acid (clay golems are immune to eldritch blast).

DFAs have better saves and their con will be through the roof. Unless you plan to do fear stacking you probably do not care about cha much so con can be boosted as much as you want. This makes them very tough. In the early game you can wear heavy armor since ASF does not affect breath weapons. Later you can wear heavy armor that is mithral and twilight so that you can start using your combat invocations.

The amount of control a DFA can put out is impressive as well. Using a version of solid fog+damage, entangling breath+damage, and slow breath on alternating rounds means that a swath of the battlefield's lives will suck as they can barely move and are lowly taking damage giving the rest of the party to eliminate the non-affected enemies and/or nuke the slow moving enemies from a distance. Breath weapons do not need to target specific targets like many EBs do which also helps.

There are a number of small benefits that really help the DFA.

[Socratov]

Er, Vitrolic Essence means laughing at SR. There's a reason it's the most popular essence.

however, anything you encounter with SR before you can get VB is putting on the side bench

[NeoSeraphi]

Is SR really so big a deal? You get your level + d20 to overcome it, and unlike actual spells, you can spam your attempts to deal with it over a number of rounds.

If you have eldritch glaive and you're at least level 8 you have 2 chances to try and overcome SR, so...

By the way, I have a question. Does anyone know of a PrC that advances a warlocks blast and/or invocations and has full BAB?

[HunterOfJello]

Changing their normal blast damage to 1d6 per level would also help them. I've played a Fire Mage from that one homebrew book and that character's damage was slightly below the party warblade's damage while doing 1d6 damage per level with each blast (i.e. 5d6 damage at level 5).

[MeeposFire]

Also realize that the artificer is tier one not just because it can make items it is how they use items. People forget that but a lot of the power of the artificer is its ability to make a simple wand into an instrument of mass destruction. Warlocks lack that power so while they can use and make an item they cannot use it like an artificer can.

[Kenneth]

I have to agree with neoseraphi here..

i never really thought that spellreisstance was that big of an obstacle to overcome. I mean lets look at a level 12 Warlock

against a abyssal basalisk who has a SR of 23.. and with no feats or items our warlock beats SR half the time. but a leonal with his SR 28.. that is scary, only a thrid of our blast are getting past that guy

now a levle 20 warlock.

a blaors SR is 28 so now our walrock buddy has a 65% chance to surpass with no feats or items to boost his penetration.. now the pit fiemnd is a bit harder wiht its SR 32 so 45% of the time our pal will succeed

but then you take some feats and an magical itme and you get like what.. +6 or so to spell penetration?


EDIT: i have to say the jessica rabbit is pretty pro.. maybe give that guy 2 cookies..?

[Mnemnosyne]

By the way, I have a question. Does anyone know of a PrC that advances a warlocks blast and/or invocations and has full BAB?
Abjurant Champion would, assuming you can qualify. You'd have to get a way to cast 1st level arcane spells. There may be a single feat that can do that which I'm not thinking of at the moment, but I know Precocious Apprentice and Sanctum Spell together would do it (Precocious Apprentice giving a 2nd level spell and Sanctum Spell allowing you to lower it by 1 level). Either that or dip a level of wizard or something.

[Socratov]

I have to agree with neoseraphi here..

i never really thought that spellreisstance was that big of an obstacle to overcome. I mean lets look at a level 12 Warlock

against a abyssal basalisk who has a SR of 23.. and with no feats or items our warlock beats SR half the time. but a leonal with his SR 28.. that is scary, only a thrid of our blast are getting past that guy

now a levle 20 warlock.

a blaors SR is 28 so now our walrock buddy has a 65% chance to surpass with no feats or items to boost his penetration.. now the pit fiemnd is a bit harder wiht its SR 32 so 45% of the time our pal will succeed

but then you take some feats and an magical itme and you get like what.. +6 or so to spell penetration?


EDIT: i have to say the jessica rabbit is pretty pro.. maybe give that guy 2 cookies..?

consider this: a lvl 6 warlock, with a party of a rogue and a barbarian ( i was the warlock, focusing on combat debuffing and beïng the partyface), against an Erinyes (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Erinyes), suddenly you only hit on a 14 or higher, which gives you effectively 35% chance to overcome SR, coupled with a touch AC of 15, you need to roll 9 to hit (60% hit chance, before dex)... but since you need to pass both of them to actually be able to deal damage, you have effectively 0.35*0.60*100%=21% chance to deal dmg once per round (seriously, who expects SR at lvl 6?), you will hit once in 5 turns statistically speaking, true it was a bossfight, but this goes for any SR monster pre vitriolic blast, and for every SR monster immune to acid including vitriolic blast. Ofcourse you can take spell penetration and greater spell penetration (total +4 for overcoming spellresistance) but the warlock is allready feat starved as it is. Against mooks the warlock is great (cone or chain, or any other AOE shape, never mind Edvards cold tentacles of forced hentai), but as soon as a bossfight comes around (bound to have some SR), the warlock hits nothing and the party si a man down since the lock can't really tank or support at all

[ShneekeyTheLost]

consider this: a lvl 6 warlock, with a party of a rogue and a barbarian ( i was the warlock, focusing on combat debuffing and beïng the partyface), against an Erinyes (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Erinyes), suddenly you only hit on a 14 or higher, which gives you effectively 35% chance to overcome SR, coupled with a touch AC of 15, you need to roll 9 to hit (60% hit chance, before dex)... but since you need to pass both of them to actually be able to deal damage, you have effectively 0.35*0.60*100%=21% chance to deal dmg once per round (seriously, who expects SR at lvl 6?), you will hit once in 5 turns statistically speaking, true it was a bossfight, but this goes for any SR monster pre vitriolic blast, and for every SR monster immune to acid including vitriolic blast. Ofcourse you can take spell penetration and greater spell penetration (total +4 for overcoming spellresistance) but the warlock is allready feat starved as it is. Against mooks the warlock is great (cone or chain, or any other AOE shape, never mind Edvards cold tentacles of forced hentai), but as soon as a bossfight comes around (bound to have some SR), the warlock hits nothing and the party si a man down since the lock can't really tank or support at all

Three level 6 characters vs a CR 8? Yea, that's a boss fight. It's *SUPPOSED* to be difficult.

There's several options a Warlock can do.

1) UMD + toys = still viable, with the right gear selection. In this party? Probably Wands of Cure Light Wounds, since he's the only healer. A Scroll of Dimension Lock would also be very valuable.

2) Same argument applies to DFA, who is Tier 3. And, unlike DFA, they actually get an ability to negate SR mid-levels. DFA? Don't.

3) I fail to see how a Warlock is feat-starved, particularly at low levels. Generally, either they take Precise Shot, or they take Spell Penetration, depending on if they think they can get their hands on the magic item that does Precise Shot for them.

[AmberVael]

2) Same argument applies to DFA, who is Tier 3. And, unlike DFA, they actually get an ability to negate SR mid-levels. DFA? Don't.

DFA: Supernatural Breath Weapon. SR? No problem. Attack roll? What's that?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

DFA option: Supernatural Breath Weapon. SR? No problem. Attack roll? What's that?

Warlock option: Supernatural Transformation. SR? No problem. Reflex save/half? What's that?

I'd *MUCH* rather use a ranged touch attack than allow a Ref/half save...

[MeeposFire]

Warlock option: Supernatural Transformation. SR? No problem. Reflex save/half? What's that?

I'd *MUCH* rather use a ranged touch attack than allow a Ref/half save...

If that is the feat from savage species that makes an innate spell like ability supernatural it does not work with the warlock. Eldritch blast is not innate it is class given.

For the record the DFA does not care about reflex half. It can use breath effects that attack will or fort and have effects on a successful save. The DFA is about control and damage is the least of what it does.

[AmberVael]

Warlock option: Supernatural Transformation. SR? No problem. Reflex save/half? What's that?

I'd *MUCH* rather use a ranged touch attack than allow a Ref/half save...
Don't change the issue here- you made a completely false claim, and I was pointing it out. The comparative effectiveness has no bearing on the truth value of the statements.

That said, attempting to claim Warlock's power as superior by use of a feat with strange wording that appears no where else (what exactly is an innate spell-like ability anyway) from a 3.0 book of questionable balance and uncommon use is a fairly poor argument, I'd say.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Don't change the issue here- you made a completely false claim, and I was pointing it out. The comparative effectiveness has no bearing on the truth value of the statements.

That said, attempting to claim Warlock's power as superior by use of a feat with strange wording that appears no where else (what exactly is an innate spell-like ability anyway) from a 3.0 book of questionable balance and uncommon use is a fairly poor argument, I'd say.

Your problem is that anything with Evasion is completely immune to a DFA, if it wishes to deal any damage. If it is applying a status effect, then a) it can't have Entangling Exhalation applied, as it explicitly mentions that it only applies to breaths that deal damage, and b) Warlock does this, better, with things like Hindering Blast, Bewitching Blast, and Nauseating Blast... because he ALSO does damage IN ADDITION to applying status effect.

And by using Eldritch Chain, he can hit multiple opponents with that status effect, without worrying about friendly fire (or rather, without needing to blow an invocation on it), or with Eldritch Cone, does exactly the same thing a DFA does, but with Damage + Status Effect, rather than Damage OR Status Effect.

[Psyren]

One thing I'll hand to Warlock, it has way better PrCs.

Not saying that changes its tier or anything, but I do prefer them to DFAs.


And Supernatural Transformation does not work with Eldritch Blast. D&D does not consider class abilities to be "innate."

[HunterOfJello]

Also realize that the artificer is tier one not just because it can make items it is how they use items. People forget that but a lot of the power of the artificer is its ability to make a simple wand into an instrument of mass destruction. Warlocks lack that power so while they can use and make an item they cannot use it like an artificer can.


This is an extremely good point. An Artificer's abilities including: Metamagic Spell Trigger, Metamagic Spell Completion, and their magic item related Infusions are what makes their magic item usage change from great to Godly.

When an Artificer runs around dual-wielding 2 Wands of Sonic Snap, they aren't dangerous because they have a pair of level 0 wands that can do 1 point of damage with no save. They're dangerous because if they have Fell Drain Metamagic, they can inflict 2 Negative Levels on an opponent each turn with no save allowed.

That's only a single example and I'm sure there are tons of creative uses for the Metamagic Spell Trigger ability, nevermind using Metamagic Spell Completion along with a very high Use Magic Device score.

Artifer's Infusions should also not be ignored especially some of the spell related ones like Spell Storing Item, Metamagic Item, and Power Surge. Spell Storing Item allows the artificer who temporarily use pretty much any spell in the game. Metamagic Item can allow the Artificer to put a powerful and high cost Metamagic into a spell trigger item and then use it for the duration of the infusion with no cost. (Who doesn't love adding a free Quicken Spell, Twin Spell, or Persistent Spell to items?) Finally, Power Surge lets an Artificer go around and add charges to items and use them. It's only 4 charges at level 20, but that can be 4 charges to a Staff of Power, Staff of Life, or one of the more powerful staves from the FR books.

Just because a Warlock can copy an Artificer's ability to create magic items doesn't mean they can ever come anywhere near comparing to an Artificer's magical item usage.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

One thing I'll hand to Warlock, it has way better PrCs.

Not saying that changes its tier or anything, but I do prefer them to DFAs.

I wouldn't say WAY better... the only two really good ones for Warlocks are either HFW, and that's only good with a way to deal with the Con damage, or the Theurge classes, particularly the divine one, as you pretty much become a Cleric with some Invocations Known and an Eldritch Blast on the side.

Then again, DFA doesn't really *NEED* any PrC's. That is a telling point in their favor.

[MeeposFire]

Your problem is that anything with Evasion is completely immune to a DFA, if it wishes to deal any damage. If it is applying a status effect, then a) it can't have Entangling Exhalation applied, as it explicitly mentions that it only applies to breaths that deal damage, and b) Warlock does this, better, with things like Hindering Blast, Bewitching Blast, and Nauseating Blast... because he ALSO does damage IN ADDITION to applying status effect.

And by using Eldritch Chain, he can hit multiple opponents with that status effect, without worrying about friendly fire (or rather, without needing to blow an invocation on it), or with Eldritch Cone, does exactly the same thing a DFA does, but with Damage + Status Effect, rather than Damage OR Status Effect.


Discorperating, paralyzing, sickening, sleep, slow, thunder, and weakening all do not reguire reflex saves. Two deal damage so starting at level 10 you do not have to worry about reflex at all (and it isn't like evasion is that common anyway).

[Psyren]

Supernatural Transformation does not work with Eldritch Blast. D&D (and No Sane DM) does not consider class abilities to be "innate."

[MeeposFire]

I wouldn't say WAY better... the only two really good ones for Warlocks are either HFW, and that's only good with a way to deal with the Con damage, or the Theurge classes, particularly the divine one, as you pretty much become a Cleric with some Invocations Known and an Eldritch Blast on the side.

Then again, DFA doesn't really *NEED* any PrC's. That is a telling point in their favor.

To be honest I would say there really are not any DFA prestige classes so I would say warlocks win that by default. I do like HFW as well and consider it near mandatory if you plan to use EB at all.

[AmberVael]

Your problem is that anything with Evasion is completely immune to a DFA, if it wishes to deal any damage. If it is applying a status effect, then a) it can't have Entangling Exhalation applied, as it explicitly mentions that it only applies to breaths that deal damage, and b) Warlock does this, better, with things like Hindering Blast, Bewitching Blast, and Nauseating Blast... because he ALSO does damage IN ADDITION to applying status effect.

And by using Eldritch Chain, he can hit multiple opponents with that status effect, without worrying about friendly fire (or rather, without needing to blow an invocation on it), or with Eldritch Cone, does exactly the same thing a DFA does, but with Damage + Status Effect, rather than Damage OR Status Effect.

1) Hindering Blast
2) Bewitching Blast
3) Noxious Blast
4) Eldritch Cone

Warlock would like to learn Eldritch Cone! But Warlock already knows 3 Greater Invocations. Delete an invocation to make room for Eldritch Cone? :smalltongue:

I don't actually expect you would advocate a warlock taking all of those effects, probably two of the essences at most, I'd wager (but probably one). Nonetheless, I would like to underscore this issue. Because, even assuming he picks up just one (lets say Noxious Blast, because though it targets fort save, it isn't mind effecting (like Bewitching), and doesn't have a puny duration (one round? Seriously Hindering?) and nauseating someone for a full minute is pretty useful) and then picks up Eldritch Cone, that means he only has one greater invocation left. What will he take? The other options are below:

1) Vitriolic Blast- this is the really reliable way for a Warlock to ignore SR, and also, the extra damage is not bad. Definitely a power people would want to take.
2) Chilling Tentacles- You hear about this one ALL the time. A heavy contender for sure.
3) Devil's Whispers- It's suggestion, but they might think it is their idea. Great.
4) Painful Slumber of the Ages- It's mind affecting... but it is a save or 'die.' For warlock. Something worth thinking about it.

And this happens every level.

Meanwhile, the dragonfire adept not only gets more options, but gets some of these things for free. The ignoring SR? SR never comes up at all. Area attack? It has a 30ft cone or 60ft line as needed, while the warlock would have to pay for either. True, evasion puts a damper on reflex saves, but SR can hit the warlock hard, and if he wants to get around it, his best recourse (Vitriolic) loses him all his status effects. Meanwhile, if the Dragonfire Adept wants to get around Evasion, they can fall back on status effects, which provoke other saves, or their invocations (properly picked, these don't need to bother SR either).

Also, any DFA build worth its ink has Endure Exposure, which means it really doesn't need to worry about friendly fire except in rare circumstances. And honestly, it's a decent invocation even without that consideration. Yeah, it takes an invocation slot, but I'd rather pay a least invocation slot on Endure Exposure from my effective 14 invocations than pay a greater invocation slot on a 30ft cone from my 12 invocations.

[MeeposFire]

At 10th level every DFA will have thunder breath, since thunder is a good damage type and uses fort saves, and can use it with entangling breath. No other 10th level breath effect is really worth it.

[Demon of Death]

Supernatural Transformation does not work with Eldritch Blast. D&D (and No Sane DM) does not consider class abilities to be "innate."

I digress, my DM (whom i think to be moderately sane) let me use Supernatural Transformation on Eldritch Blast, as he considered it to be innate.

[MeeposFire]

I digress, my DM (whom i think to be moderately sane) let me use Supernatural Transformation on Eldritch Blast, as he considered it to be innate.

I guess that makes him not sane :smalltongue:. In all seriousness though nothing class related is innate as all classes are acquired. It is easy to confuse I admit since the fluff makes it sound like it could be innate but classes are not. It even specifically says so in the Official FAQ by name (page 45) that it does not work with warlocks. Innate abilities are racial abilities and the like.

[candycorn]

I guess that makes him not sane :smalltongue:. In all seriousness though nothing class related is innate as all classes are acquired. It is easy to confuse I admit since the fluff makes it sound like it could be innate but classes are not. It even specifically says so in the Official FAQ by name (page 45) that it does not work with warlocks. Innate abilities are racial abilities and the like.

One thing that irritates me about the "Official FAQ", is that the only thing it officially is... is a FAQ. It is officially unofficial, if you're looking at it from the perspective of a rules source.

[MeeposFire]

One thing that irritates me about the "Official FAQ", is that the only thing it officially is... is a FAQ. It is officially unofficial, if you're looking at it from the perspective of a rules source.

Don't get into that argument again. At best it is arguable that it is a rules source even if it isn't not 100% consistent (then again neither are the rule books in general so that is not a knock on just the FAQ). There is an argument for it being a rules source and an argument that it is not and it took up many pages of stupid arguments so I recommend not bringing it back up for all our sakes. Further you shouldn't need a FAQ to explain how a class based ability is not "innate" because if it was innate you wouldn't need to pick a class to get it.

[candycorn]

Don't get into that argument again. At best it is arguable that it is a rules source even if it isn't not 100% consistent (then again neither are the rule books in general so that is not a knock on just the FAQ). There is an argument for it being a rules source and an argument that it is not and it took up many pages of stupid arguments so I recommend not bringing it back up for all our sakes. Further you shouldn't need a FAQ to explain how a class based ability is not "innate" because if it was innate you wouldn't need to pick a class to get it.

The most generous possible argument you can make for the FAQ, Meepos, is that it's a respected opinion. Every rules source has identified itself as a rules source. The FAQ acts solely in the capacity of interpreting and explaining the rules, not making them.

For the record, I agree. Class-based abilities are not innate. That's because of the meaning of innate, however, not the opinion of the FAQ. Innate is defined as something that exists in someone from birth.

[Psyren]

The most generous possible argument you can make for the FAQ, Meepos, is that it's a respected opinion. Every rules source has identified itself as a rules source. The FAQ acts solely in the capacity of interpreting and explaining the rules, not making them.

Since the rules-definition of "innate" was neglected from any sourcebook, the FAQ is doing it's job.

[candycorn]

Since the rules-definition of "innate" was neglected from any sourcebook, the FAQ is doing it's job.

The rules-definition for "dice" was neglected from any sourcebook. Does that mean we need a FAQ entry telling us the basic meanings of english words?

[Psyren]

The rules-definition for "dice" was neglected from any sourcebook. Does that mean we need a FAQ entry telling us the basic meanings of english words?

Whether you "need" a certain definition or not depends on how frequently discussions like these arise.

[candycorn]

Whether you "need" a certain definition or not depends on how frequently discussions like these arise.

Regardless of how frequently these discussions arise, the FAQ is a good deal less official for interpreting the game rules than your garden variety dictionary.

[MeeposFire]

Regardless of how frequently these discussions arise, the FAQ is a good deal less official for interpreting the game rules than your garden variety dictionary.

It is by far more official than you, me, or anybody on this board that did not write the book. So considering it is written there, yours is not written anywhere, the fact that logically an acquired class does not compute with innate in the first place, and that the FAQ entry does not conflict with any actual rules means that really there is no leg to stand on outside of personal arrogance (since you think you know better than one of the people working for WotC) and disliking the source.

[sonofzeal]

Would a racial trait gained through a Savage Progression (essentially class levels) qualify as "innate"? :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Regardless of how frequently these discussions arise, the FAQ is a good deal less official for interpreting the game rules than your garden variety dictionary.

You're missing my point; degree of office isn't the issue here. (Nor do I automatically accept that Webster's perspective accurately captures a gaming context/designer's intent in all cases, but that's a side-discussion.)


The point is this: when the dictionary is sufficient (e.g. "what are dice?" to use your example) the questions aren't asked frequently. No FAQ entry is thus needed.

When the dictionary is not sufficient (e.g. "what is innate?" Or perhaps more accurately "Does X count as innate?") the question comes up repeatedly. It is therefore, quite literally, a "frequently asked question."

"But the dictionary is sufficient to answer that second question," I hear you reply. And yet, if the question didn't keep coming up, it wouldn't need a FAQ entry. These very boards are the proof of this, along with WotC's own boards, the Sage's inbox, the CustServ lines etc. That the FAQ/Sage addresses something is itself proof that it needed addressing, at least from a volume standpoint.

[MeeposFire]

Would a racial trait gained through a Savage Progression (essentially class levels) qualify as "innate"? :smallwink:

OO you may have gotten me on that one :smallwink: . But in all seriousness considering that those savage progressions are really just a way to acquire your racial abilities not all at once it is really just your race broken up into tiny tasty bits and not acquired classes but I am sure you already know that.

[Psyren]

Would a racial trait gained through a Savage Progression (essentially class levels) qualify as "innate"? :smallwink:

A savage progression is not a true class, so yes. "The only way to take a level of a monster class is to be that monster" proves that everything you gain from it is innate.

[Wings of Peace]

It is by far more official than you, me, or anybody on this board that did not write the book. So considering it is written there, yours is not written anywhere, the fact that logically an acquired class does not compute with innate in the first place, and that the FAQ entry does not conflict with any actual rules means that really there is no leg to stand on outside of personal arrogance (since you think you know better than one of the people working for WotC) and disliking the source.

The FAQ does not often conflict with actual rules but it has been known to conflict with itself. Since the FAQ itself is not a primary rule source your argument that it is more official than the layperson is null as Layperson<>Official is still unofficial.

[candycorn]

It is by far more official than you, me, or anybody on this board that did not write the book. So considering it is written there, yours is not written anywhere, the fact that logically an acquired class does not compute with innate in the first place, and that the FAQ entry does not conflict with any actual rules means that really there is no leg to stand on outside of personal arrogance (since you think you know better than one of the people working for WotC) and disliking the source.First, I would thank you to not throw insults. It serves no purpose, other than to degenerate the discussion into such behavior.

Second, it is not more official than you, me, or anyone else. We are all equally not official rules sources. That's not a sliding scale. It's boolean. Yes, or no.

And in this case, it's no.

For the record, I'd wager that "one of the people working for WotC" includes the guy that sweeps the hallways and empties the trash cans. For another, it's not whether or not I "know better". It's whether I will accept a non rules source as basis for a rules answer.

I will not, and no amount of prodding, persuading, insulting, or pressuring will convince me to accept otherwise.

You're missing my point; degree of office isn't the issue here.It's precisely the issue. When determining whether or not I will accept an answer based on a source to be RAW, I first consider whether the source is authoritative on the subject. You don't build houses on foundations of sand. They don't stand up.

(Nor do I automatically accept that Webster's perspective accurately captures a gaming context/designer's intent in all cases, but that's a side-discussion.)Neither do I. That's the point.


The point is this: when the dictionary is sufficient (e.g. "what are dice?" to use your example) the questions aren't asked frequently. No FAQ entry is thus needed.The dictionary is sufficient in this case, and yet, the questions were asked. Therefore, this cannot be true in all cases.

When the dictionary is not sufficient (e.g. "what is innate?" Or perhaps more accurately "Does X count as innate?") the question comes up repeatedly. It is therefore, quite literally, a "frequently asked question."Is a 6 sided cube with numbers on each side?
Answer: Look in the dictionary
"what is innate?"
Answer: Look in the dictionary

"But the dictionary is sufficient to answer that second question," I hear you reply. And yet, if the question didn't keep coming up, it wouldn't need a FAQ entry.And you said that if the dictionary is sufficient, then this wouldn't happen. Therefore, your own assertions are self-contradictory. Much like the FAQ.

These very boards are the proof of this, along with WotC's own boards, the Sage's inbox, the CustServ lines etc. That the FAQ/Sage addresses something is itself proof that it needed addressing, at least from a volume standpoint.However, the source that can be used to verify this isn't an unofficial, unconfirmed, unreliable opinion. It is, more accurately, an authoritative source on the meaning of the words used. In this case, a garden variety dictionary.

Since the game rules are written in english, the answers for definitions will be found either in the rules of the game, or in the nuances of the english language.

In other words, when answering questions about the rules, "the FAQ says..." has about as much weight as, "my neighbor William says..." It may be right, and it may be wrong. Either way, it isn't shown to be either, because, at the end of the day, the FAQ is no more than an opinion.

[sonofzeal]

A savage progression is not a true class, so yes. "The only way to take a level of a monster class is to be that monster" proves that everything you gain from it is innate.
So if I found some text on, say, Red Wizard that said "the only way to take a level of this class is to be human", would that make Circle Magic innate? :smallamused:

[MeeposFire]

So if I found some text on, say, Red Wizard that said "the only way to take a level of this class is to be human", would that make Circle Magic innate? :smallamused:

Nope that is a class ability that requires a race not an innate ability since you still have to acquire it. That is far less clever of a jab than the savage progressions. though sadly


Candycorn I have just looked and you are not disagreeing with the premise of the innate not applying to eldritch blast. Thus your disagreement is actually derailing the thread since it is unnecessary (since whether or not the FAQ counts you are not actually disagreeing with what I said). Thus just let it go so they can get back to talking about warlocks rather than the tiresome debate on the FAQ which has happened before, will happen again, and will never stop because there is no good answer for the dilemma. If you really want to argue about it create a thread about the FAQ and talk about it there though I am very unlikely to follow since I don't really want to continue arguing over one of the great endless debates in 3e.


So warlocks tier 4. I think that is a good fit not much else to say I guess.

[Psyren]

And you said that if the dictionary is sufficient, then this wouldn't happen. Therefore, your own assertions are self-contradictory. Much like the FAQ.

What? I'm the one saying it's not sufficient in this case. Hence, the FAQ.

[candycorn]

The point is this: when the dictionary is sufficient (e.g. "what are dice?" to use your example) the questions aren't asked frequently. No FAQ entry is thus needed.


What? I'm the one saying it's not sufficient in this case. Hence, the FAQ.

What is "innate"?


innate: existing in one from birth; inborn; native: innate musical talent.
Yup. Looks like it's sufficient.

And yet, it's evidently asked a lot. So your original statement, "if a player can answer the question merely by knowing what the words mean, no FAQ is needed" is false. If this is needed, then it is obvious that the answer results not from the inadequacy of the dictionary, but the inadequacy of the player's grasp of the english language, and the basic level of problem-solving skills of 'look up words you don't know'.

In either case, whether you feel the FAQ is 'needed' is irrelevant. The information can be gathered by using reputable, authoritative sources. The FAQ is neither reputable, nor authoritative.

Therefore, it makes sense to not use the "opinion of that guy over there" when you can rely on "the rules, and the meanings of the words involved".

[stainboy]

While a lot of char op types believe the FAQ can't override RAW, there's absolutely no reason to believe it can't override Webster's Dictionary. We can reduce any rules text to unparsable nonsense by using common English definitions instead of game definitions.

You are trying to "prove" the FAQ doesn't apply because you don't like what it says. If you don't like it, make a house rule.

[MeeposFire]

While a lot of char op types believe the FAQ can't override RAW, there's absolutely no reason to believe it can't override Webster's Dictionary. We can reduce any rules text to unparsable nonsense by using common English definitions instead of game definitions.

You are trying to "prove" the FAQ doesn't apply because you don't like what it says. If you don't like it, make a house rule.

You see the problem is he is actually not disagreeing with our conclusion he just does not like the FAQ. He is arguing a point for no reason and has little to do with the thread. I tried to let him know that it is needlessly derailing the thread but he apparently feels he needs to get the last word on the subject.

[Psyren]

Yup. Looks like it's sufficient.

No, it's still not. Does everyone take class levels at the same stage in their lives? What if you reincarnate? What about "reborn" races like Elan and Necropolitan?

If incarnum is to be believed, souls have classes even before they're born. Does your dictionary - any dictionary - address that?

Of course it doesn't. But the game's designers? Can.

[MukkTB]

I'm confused by this FAQ thing. Why should we discard it? Because its badly made? That describes a lot of books. Of course my group is more likely to let the DM rule on the question rather than go ask a question unless the problem is likely to come up many times...

[Rubik]

And Supernatural Transformation does not work with Eldritch Blast. D&D does not consider class abilities to be "innate."Except psionics (aside from divine minds, which suck on every possible level).

[sonofzeal]

Nope that is a class ability that requires a race not an innate ability since you still have to acquire it. That is far less clever of a jab than the savage progressions. though sadly
That's Psyren's logic for why Savage Progressions still work. And as you just demonstrated, it's got some holes in it.... :smalltongue:

[stainboy]

I'm confused by this FAQ thing. Why should we discard it? Because its badly made? That describes a lot of books. Of course my group is more likely to let the DM rule on the question rather than go ask a question unless the problem is likely to come up many times...

There are a few cases where it uses game terms incorrectly, or cites a book and gets what the book says wrong. But most of the time people say the FAQ can't override RAW because the FAQ tells them they're wrong about an ambiguous rules reading.

Me: I want my paladin to have a cohort with assassin levels. Paladins aren't allowed to associate with evil characters, plural. That means they can associate with one!
Sane Person: That's not what it means. Stop being retarded.
Me: Look, it's not my fault you can't read the rules. The rules clearly say every paladin is entitled to one evil associate.
Sane Person #2: I just checked the FAQ, and it says paladins can't associate with even one evil character.
Me: Well... the FAQ can't contradict RAW, and RAW says they can!

Most FAQ arguments go like that.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Please read for me the first paragraph in the Warlock heading, on page 5 of Complete Arcane. Specifically, read the final sentence in the first paragraph.

"By harnessing his innate magical gift through fearsome determination and force of will,"

Wow, looks like warlock invocations are, by definition, innate.

[Helldog]

Please read for me the first paragraph in the Warlock heading, on page 5 of Complete Arcane. Specifically, read the final sentence in the first paragraph.

"By harnessing his innate magical gift through fearsome determination and force of will,"

Wow, looks like warlock invocations are, by definition, innate.
Yeah. I noticed it also. But that's just fluff and apparently fluff is not RAW (somewhere in FAQ it's said that class abilities don't count as innate).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yeah. I noticed it also. But that's just fluff and apparently fluff is not RAW (somewhere in FAQ it's said that class abilities don't count as innate).

FAQ is not an official source. At least my quote is in official WOTC published material.

[Psyren]

There are a few cases where it uses game terms incorrectly, or cites a book and gets what the book says wrong. But most of the time people say the FAQ can't override RAW because the FAQ tells them they're wrong about an ambiguous rules reading.

Me: I want my paladin to have a cohort with assassin levels. Paladins aren't allowed to associate with evil characters, plural. That means they can associate with one!
Sane Person: That's not what it means. Stop being retarded.
Me: Look, it's not my fault you can't read the rules. The rules clearly say every paladin is entitled to one evil associate.
Sane Person #2: I just checked the FAQ, and it says paladins can't associate with even one evil character.
Me: Well... the FAQ can't contradict RAW, and RAW says they can!

Most FAQ arguments go like that.

That's the gist of it, yeah.
What's even more amusing is how quick they are to cite FAQ when it agrees with what they want to do.

[Helldog]

FAQ is not an official source. At least my quote is in official WOTC published material.
Fluff isn't rules.
See stainboys post quoted above.