Do you use/like Warlocks?

[silverwolfer]

Just a general Q&A , do you use warlocks and if you do why if you don't well ..why

[Sacrieur]

No, because they fail, like tier 5 fail.

[Zombulian]

No, because they fail, like tier 5 fail.

Says YOU, jerk! *runs off sobbing*

[Arcanist]

I like Warlocks because I like Invocations and I like Invocations because I like renewable resources and I like renewable resources because I love the environment. Go Green Mother****er!

EDIT: Also, being able to go Lichfiend as a PC is just to hard to pass up :smallamused:

[Edge of Dreams]

I like warlocks because they fill two important niches:

* A magic-based damage dealer that doesn't have issues with running out of spells per day or being told "save or dies are so much better!" all the time
* A magic-based class that is less powerful than 9th-level-spell classes, but still has a good number of options and cool special abilities.

Dragonfire Adept is another class that falls in the same niches.

Of course, I'm also the guy who thinks Bard, Duskblade, and Pathfinder's Magus and Summoner are all awesome classes.

[Kane0]

It's ok Zombulian, we'll show him. We'll show them all.

Mate, I love Warlocks. Just check my homebrew, I started with the Servitor (an expanded, powered up Warlock) then did some custom invocations and more recently when I made my own variant of 3rd ed the Warlock was the first class that I imported.

Maybe its the support caster role, maybe its the Blasty feel, maybe its the Fiendish fluff and characters that spring from it, maybe its the ability to go all day and stay reliable, maybe its just the image in my head. It all rocks. And the ability to do my job and not overshadow the party or feel irrelevant is a nice bonus.

But yeah, I like me my warlocks.

Edit: I enjoy Hexblades in much the same way. It's probably the feel and flavor that couples with the abilities. My favourite characer concept to use is "This (evil) power is all I have, and I use it the best I can. Whether or not you approve has no meaning to me, because I have only one choice and it is not a blessing."
/Digression

[Kobold Esq]

I like warlocks in theory, but they have the same problem that sorcerers do (but to a greater extreme). Game developers don't know how to balance unlimited resource classes with limited resource classes.

When sorcerers were added to 3rd edition, someone decided "wow these guys have so much extra staying power, we better nerf them!" So sorcerers got no class features (not even the wizard bonus feats) and delayed spell progression. Warlocks faced the same problem, but even more so. "Wow, these guys can shoot FOREVER, so we need to REALLY nerf them!"

In reality, due to the nature of a party-based game, most of the time the party will hole up when the wizard, psion, cleric, etc is out of tricks for the day (barring exigent circumstances). In my experience, warlocks never get to use their main strength.

Second major problem I have with warlocks: Most of their abilities are far too narrowly focused. Having a small number of tricks is fine, if they can be used in a variety of ways. The vast majority of invocations cannot.

[Socratov]

No, because they fail, like tier 5 fail.

ehm... they are high tier 4. Just because someone playes one weakly or seriously unoptimised doesn't mean the class itself sucks...Some even argued that they are tier 3 with good arguments... Ymmv on that one, but certainly not T5. Go read up on the tierlist. and besides, since when is the tier system a measurement of fun? If that's the case, go play Pun-Pun and have your 'fun'.

anyway, I love warlocks. Not just becuase the machanics are nice to play with (It's like a bride's wedding: something standard, something special, something quick and something defensive), the fluff is mutable without really changing the chassis (just a word/name change, effect remains) and the class can easily raise a tier (if not a tier and a half) with splat and dragon mag diving, without even taking away the complete concept.

they are fun to play for interactions, have nifty abilites and casting without asking for a bachelors degree in bookkeeping and whether you dip or go for the class you will be able to find opportunities to be useful.

I seriously htink that Warlock, together with Bard, is one of the better designed classes in the whole of 3.5

though this is my personal opinion and YMMV

[Krazzman]

Yes I use them...

at least I played some. I like the abilities being at will. Casting is for me something seriously confusing... as in Analysis Paralysis confusing. In a PF campaign I play a 7th level sorc and so far it is ok but a prepared caster is... far harder. It is quite a challenge. In a "recent" campaign, that stretched to level 6 I played a Warlock belongside a Ninja/Fighter/going to be duelist and a Healing Focused Cleric/Crusader going RKV of Shauntea. Either the Cleric rocked the encounters or the cleric and I rocked trough it. It was fun. It's just the early abilities are cool and the higher level you get you just get more awesome out of it.

[Vizzerdrix]

Yes and Yes.

It isn't often that I'll go back and tinker with an old character or concept, but my petal hellfire trick-lock is one that I can spend hours tinkering with on rainy days.

[Norin]

Of course, I'm also the guy who thinks Bard, Duskblade, and Pathfinder's Magus and Summoner are all awesome classes.

Yeah, and Beguilers and Dread Necro's. Very cool classes.

I played a warlock a while back, just after the Complete Arcane came out. At that point in my RPG career we did not min/max alot.

The warlock was seen as totaly imbalanced because i could fly and blast ranged touch at will all day. The rest of the party (the players) got a bit upset and angry with the whole thing.

I'm tempted to pick the class up again and try it out with all the new feats and things that has arrived in later time. They are pretty cool, yeah.

[HunterOfJello]

I do not use them and I do not really like them. They seem like a stunted class that should have a faster progression, better abilities, and do more damage. I find them sad and a misguided class choice for most of my games. (I could approve more if I was in a lower power game.)

[Feralventas]

I have recently used them as massed mobs facing the party; the enemy got a package deal for their minions so as to get a discount on the devil deal; 10 years of service after death rather than eternal damnation, but with the promise of a consistent stream of trained and tried warlock servants.

See the Unseen.
Eldritch Spear.
All-Seeing Eyes.
Fel Flight.

Gave the players a heck of a run for their money when facing an army that had kill-sat teams flying around to support their lizard-folk bruisers on the ground.



As a player, I prefer the detection specialization rout. See the Unseen, All-Seeing Eyes, Devil's Sight, Void Sense, and the UMD/crafting abilities to boost Spot and Listen. I may not do much damage, but nobody's sneaking up on us. Ever.

I also like glaive-locks with dips in Warblade.

[willpell]

The Warlock's flavor narrowness irritates me, but I like the elegant simplicity he brings to the wizard/sorcerer concept. FMArthur's homebrewing of multiple power sources gives them a nice bit of extra variety, but what they really need are more invocations, ones that aren't all deathdoomdarkness. Still, they play more like a classic D&D wizard than the actual Wizard often does, so they definitely get points in my book.


In reality, due to the nature of a party-based game, most of the time the party will hole up when the wizard, psion, cleric, etc is out of tricks for the day (barring exigent circumstances). In my experience, warlocks never get to use their main strength.

IMO this is a problem with the way the party is being played, not with the warlock. In my games, I consider longevity extremely strong, and parties that try to get away with the 15-minute adventuring day are in for a world of hurt. Ambushes in the middle of the night are not a possibility, they're virtually guaranteed. You can't sleep in a Rope Trick in my game, and a Magnificent Mansion is not completely intruder-proof (though it does make for a fun adventure site, so you're likely to get bonus XP for going along with the idea). An environment like this makes depletionless characters like the Fighter and Warlock look substantially better.

[Amnestic]

I like both Invoker classes. Not the most powerful, not the most flexible, but they're elegant and easy to use without much effort.

I'll echo that the limited nature of the Warlock's power source could be fixed, but that's mostly fluff and can be refluffed as desired by the campaign.

[Cranthis]

I like both Invoker classes. Not the most powerful, not the most flexible, but they're elegant and easy to use without much effort.

I'll echo that the limited nature of the Warlock's power source could be fixed, but that's mostly fluff and can be refluffed as desired by the campaign.

Both? There is one outside of warlock?

[Person_Man]

I personally do not like or use them. For me, the hallmarks of eloquent class design are:

1) An list of useful, thematically appropriate abilities.
2) The ability to choose from that list at least once per day.
3) A limiting mechanic which encourages you to use a variety of different abilities (as opposed to using the same ability over and over again).

The Warlock has a useful list of cool things to do. But once chosen, it is pretty much locked into that list. And because there is no mechanic that limits the use of those abilities, the Warlock tends to do the same thing every round of every combat, with not a lot of variation between game days.

I know that the Warlock appeals to many other people, especially newer gamers who like simplicity, or gamers who fear that they will "run out" of resources. (Who may also wish to look at the Tome of Battle, Totemist, Incarnate, or Binder). But it's not my cup of tea.

[Hunter Noventa]

Both? There is one outside of warlock?

The Dragonfire Adept uses the same mechanics and shares some invocations, just a different flavor.

I personally enjoy Warlocks. Next time my group includes 3.5 content I might play one again.

[Sacrieur]

Instead of making warlock an actually powerful class to fulfill the roll of the glass cannon, they decided that's too overpowered, and gave him infinite blasties with crap damage.

He's only tier 4 because invocations make him more versatile than say, a monk. But he still fails pretty hard when it comes to what he was designed to do.

But, while versatility is part of the story, it isn't all of it. Using optimizing you could probably somewhat fix him, but his core mechanic is just plain awful. At fifteenth level you're dealing on average, 54 damage.

I knew a psiwar who could deal an average of 60 damage by level three.

And it's not that I won't play anything that isn't munchkin approved. It's just that classes that are just going to be outshined all of the time are boring to play, for just about everyone. He's not a glass cannon like he's supposed to be, he's just a waste of space.

Your utility invocations are going to be outshined by any other primary caster in the party, but most probably a wizard, sorcerer, or psion. You're going to feel pretty weak when it turns out that combat is very, very scary because you're squishy. You'll end up dealing a little less or just about the same amount of damage as the fighter/barb who are taking hits no problem. And you're going to feel left out when the support caster isn't really too focused on you.

I love glass cannons, and as a glass cannon, mr. warlock just isn't up to snuff. Just play a sorcerer with some warlock fluff/flavor and you'll have saved yourself a lot of frustration about feeling useless.

[Cranthis]

The Dragonfire Adept uses the same mechanics and shares some invocations, just a different flavor.

I personally enjoy Warlocks. Next time my group includes 3.5 content I might play one again.

Ah, yes. Its been awhile since I looked at that class.

[Gullara]

I personally like the feel of the Warlock class, though I admit I haven't had the pleasure of actually playing one. It's a combination of the unlimited blastiness and self buffs. I do like a certain amount of simplicity in how my characters approach combat, so that probably influences my opinion.

I like the standard fluff of the class as well, but it's also nice that it's fairly easy to refluff. There's no reason to play a demonic themed warlock, because really, for a lot of the demon themed powers are really only demonic in the name.

So yes, I quite like the class, and I hope to play it sometime in the not too distant future.

[Snowbluff]

Of course I use it. It's like being a DFA but awesome. I don't like DFA very much. Not as much variety as warlock.

[Morcleon]

Warlock is a great class. At-will abilities are fun. I like it, despite most of the art being rather weird looking.


Of course I use it. It's like being a DFA but awesome. I don't like DFA very much. Not as much variety as warlock.

DFA just doesn't get as much support... :smallfrown:

[hymer]

I've never PCed a warlock, but I've seen two as such, and I've DMed a few warlock NPCs. They feel a little lacking in the oomph department, but they're fun and yet strangely straightforward. 3/5 overall, 4/5 if UMD gets a significant role in the campaign.

[Snowbluff]

DFA just doesn't get as much support... :smallfrown:

Which is funny, because there are a crazy amount of Dragon-related material. Overall, DFA is just not as cool and dragon stuff is overdone.

[Morcleon]

Which is funny, because there are a crazy amount of Dragon-related material. Overall, DFA is just not as cool and dragon stuff is overdone.

Dragon stuff is only overdone because of the second D. And because WotC thinks they're really powerful.

I once refluffed the DFA as a DBZ-style character whose breath weapon was a kamehameha. Refluffing solves everything! :smallbiggrin: Disclaimer: Results may vary.

[Mithril Leaf]

I very rarely end up using warlocks, usually subbing in binder or psion to get the same sort of staying power and common usage of a nice power set. In the rare instance I want a pure blaster for at will use, I generally end up using the Dragonfire Adept instead, warlocks just don't appeal to me that much.

[hymer]

He's only tier 4 because invocations make him more versatile than say, a monk.

The only class with better UMD skillz is the artificer. Warlock with a floating chameleon feat is arguably the second best crafter in the game. 24hour buffs at will make warlocks very attractive for certain dips. The ability to stay invisible and see invisible indefinitely without expending resources is useful in so many situations.

Warlock is pretty darn solid tier4.

[SowZ]

The Warlock's flavor narrowness irritates me, but I like the elegant simplicity he brings to the wizard/sorcerer concept. FMArthur's homebrewing of multiple power sources gives them a nice bit of extra variety, but what they really need are more invocations, ones that aren't all deathdoomdarkness. Still, they play more like a classic D&D wizard than the actual Wizard often does, so they definitely get points in my book.



IMO this is a problem with the way the party is being played, not with the warlock. In my games, I consider longevity extremely strong, and parties that try to get away with the 15-minute adventuring day are in for a world of hurt. Ambushes in the middle of the night are not a possibility, they're virtually guaranteed. You can't sleep in a Rope Trick in my game, and a Magnificent Mansion is not completely intruder-proof (though it does make for a fun adventure site, so you're likely to get bonus XP for going along with the idea). An environment like this makes depletionless characters like the Fighter and Warlock look substantially better.

At levels 10 and below, I can see that it could make a very noticeable difference. At 10+, where you have 18+ spells of level 2 and above not to mention scrolls and wands, the Wizard probably needn't worry.

[Amnestic]

Which is funny, because there are a crazy amount of Dragon-related material. Overall, DFA is just not as cool and dragon stuff is overdone.

DFAs are totally cool ;-; We're all dragon-y and mysterious and...and...mysterious!

More seriously, DFAs probably lack support simply because Dragon Magic was a fairly late release - September 2006 (which for reference is after Tome of Battle, another book commonly cited as coming out quite late in the 3.5 run). Warlocks by comparison had already been out for just under two years by then.

[saxavarius]

One of my favorite classes actually. I am one of maybe 3 people in my group of friends that even knows how to optimize without any "please sir, could I have this item/power/whatever?'; so I can play a caster and not make the mooks party feel irrelevant.

[gallagher]

Warlock+Prestige Bard is a pretty awesome combo, and with a rogue dip you can be a very effective sneaky guy with the right invocation choices

[Kobold Esq]

IMO this is a problem with the way the party is being played, not with the warlock.

Absolutely. But if the warlock is in a party with a wizard, bard, cleric, and smite paladin, the warlock is totally going to be out voted when the other guys are running low on spells and want to rest up.

In a game where primary casters don't exist, sure the warlock would get more of a chance to shine. However, it would still have the "I can only do one thing well" problem, which makes it a poor substitute for a real caster of any kind. I absolutely hate the lack of flexibility.

Give me a beguiler any day.

[Feralventas]

Dragon stuff is only overdone because of the second D. And because WotC thinks they're really powerful.

I once refluffed the DFA as a DBZ-style character whose breath weapon was a kamehameha. Refluffing solves everything! :smallbiggrin: Disclaimer: Results may vary.

Or to keep the dragon association, but dodge some of the 3.5 fluff.

fus
Roh
DAH!

[Sgt. Cookie]

Yes, I love them! They are a really great class as-is, granted they're not that versitile.

@Gallagher: If you're making a Bardlock you don't want to loose more than the one level, you only get 15 effective Warlock levels, 16 is the maximum PrC Bard gets from associated spell casters, so dipping rogue is a really bad idea.

[Ardantis]

In the past year, I used a Warlock as a villain in a game, and he worked quite well. The lack of versatility and the low power of his abilities didn't make him any less of a threat to the PCs (and their quest), who had to stop him from destroying a market.

I've never played one as a PC, and I have no intention of doing it, but because they have some unorthodox abilities combined with reliable, if low-level power, they are great villains who really inspire the party to employ unorthodox tactics in response.

[Kobold Esq]

I've never played one as a PC, and I have no intention of doing it, but because they have some unorthodox abilities combined with reliable, if low-level power, they are great villains who really inspire the party to employ unorthodox tactics in response.

You do make an excellent point. Warlocks do make very good villain classes because of their simplicity for the DM, while still being a plausible threat. The DM is unlikely to get bored like a player would with the limited abilities.

I also like using warlock or DFA levels to beef up otherwise boring creatures to make them more interesting, almost like adding a template that gives SLAs (invocations), but also gives HD as well.

Lastly, I have enjoyed using these classes on cohorts when the cohort is a strange race. This lets the cohort increase in power without having it turn into a full fledged second PC. Dragonfire Adept pseudodragon or Warlock tressym, for example.

[Sacrieur]

The only class with better UMD skillz is the artificer. Warlock with a floating chameleon feat is arguably the second best crafter in the game. 24hour buffs at will make warlocks very attractive for certain dips. The ability to stay invisible and see invisible indefinitely without expending resources is useful in so many situations.

Warlock is pretty darn solid tier4.

Yes, one such fix.

This, however, doesn't make up for the fact it can barely perform it's role (glass cannon) very well. Just the class without any optimization is trash.

[Feralventas]

Yes, one such fix.

This, however, doesn't make up for the fact it can barely perform it's role (glass cannon) very well. Just the class without any optimization is trash.

I reject this sentiment.

1: A warlock is not forced into being a glass cannon. It's choice of invocations can lead one to treat it as
-Damage output
-Utility caster/Skill Monkey
-Support/Debuff
while being capable in any of these fields.

2: That a class doesn't break the game doesn't make it WEAK, it makes it GOOD. Bard. Beguiler. Warlock. Warblade. All good classes that are capable in their own right without needing exploits or excessive amounts of utilities and firepower and alternative options to play effectively in their roles, whatever they may be.

3: If you need more damage output, Dealing 1d6 per two levels without any per day limitation isn't half bad. If for some reason you Want limited burst damage to add to that, Empower and Maximize Spell Like Ability can also help with this, not to mention the Binder/Hellfire Warlock combo.

[willpell]

I don't know why you guys keep calling the warlock a glass cannon. He can wear light armor and has D6s; that makes him MUCH tougher than a sorcerer or wizard, and he can keep blasting forever instead of getting maybe 5 blasts (at low levels; it's true that I'm not familiar with higher levels but I also tend to assume that they're extremely rare).

[Sergeantbrother]

I like the idea of the warlock, though I think that they just get too few invocations. I think that often D&D over values infinite use magical powers and as a result, overcompensated in giving the warlock too few of them.

[Socratov]

The Warlock's flavor narrowness irritates me, but I like the elegant simplicity he brings to the wizard/sorcerer concept. FMArthur's homebrewing of multiple power sources gives them a nice bit of extra variety, but what they really need are more invocations, ones that aren't all deathdoomdarkness. Still, they play more like a classic D&D wizard than the actual Wizard often does, so they definitely get points in my book.

then instead you make him more fey related, same classabilites, but refluffed in name (we've been over this IIRC) to wathever you want. YMMV

Instead of making warlock an actually powerful class to fulfill the roll of the glass cannon, they decided that's too overpowered, and gave him infinite blasties with crap damage.

He's only tier 4 because invocations make him more versatile than say, a monk. But he still fails pretty hard when it comes to what he was designed to do.

But, while versatility is part of the story, it isn't all of it. Using optimizing you could probably somewhat fix him, but his core mechanic is just plain awful. At fifteenth level you're dealing on average, 54 damage.

I knew a psiwar who could deal an average of 60 damage by level three.

And it's not that I won't play anything that isn't munchkin approved. It's just that classes that are just going to be outshined all of the time are boring to play, for just about everyone. He's not a glass cannon like he's supposed to be, he's just a waste of space.

Your utility invocations are going to be outshined by any other primary caster in the party, but most probably a wizard, sorcerer, or psion. You're going to feel pretty weak when it turns out that combat is very, very scary because you're squishy. You'll end up dealing a little less or just about the same amount of damage as the fighter/barb who are taking hits no problem. And you're going to feel left out when the support caster isn't really too focused on you.

I love glass cannons, and as a glass cannon, mr. warlock just isn't up to snuff. Just play a sorcerer with some warlock fluff/flavor and you'll have saved yourself a lot of frustration about feeling useless.
Ok, I think I know what you are talking about: the DnD warlock is nothing like the WoW warlock... I mean, that seems to be the whole point here... He is not a health burning, ashes turning gatlinggun of damage... No, if you watn a blaster, play a psion (was there earlier), or a mailman (sorc is a baseclass that can do that). the purpose of a warlock is to go on indefinately. He's like the duracell bunny, he never stops becuase he has infinte resources. Literally. he can blast down a terrasque at some point before 10 becuase eh can jsut fly aroudn all day and night and pew-pew him. some classes tend to have a problem with that becuase they must allow the tarrasque to hurt them bcause they cannot fly (and hte money is needed for scroll of wish). So what the warlock is, is someone with infite resources, and if played in a certain way, having an answer for everything. (except maybe even pun-pun). if you play a warlock as a blaster you are not playing it optimized. (not that it is wrong). If anything the warlock is less like a wizard or sorcerer, but more like an artificer.

The thing is, thsi is saying that the warblade is useless becuase it can't cast fireballs all day. or that the bard is useless because he can't play the role of ubercharger very well. Or saying that a sorcerer is useless becuase he can't cast miracle. Just becuase a class is not geared towards a particular role doesn't make it useless overall (and comparable to a monk!). if you don't like how the class plays say so, but saying the class is useless anyway no matter what role or build is just appearing stupid.

[Drakevarg]

Absolutely I like Warlocks. The only reason I have them currently banned from my campaign is that I find them conceptually incompatible with traditional casters.

That said, I plan on solving this AND my general distaste for mages that can do everything ever by replacing all traditional casters with Warlocks and DFAs in my next campaign, with the consent and at the suggestion of my players.

[willpell]

then instead you make him more fey related, same classabilites, but refluffed in name (we've been over this IIRC)

Yes we have, and I still maintain that it doesn't work. You can homebrew new Invocations, and tie some of them to a "fey" power source while the written ones that are objectionable are ruled to use the "dark" power source. This is a lot of work, but would solve the problem. Refluffing, IMO, either doesn't solve the problem or is a lot of work (and probably counts as homebrew in the latter case). If your tentacles randomly do cold damage even though you've refluffed them as jungle vines, then it's a crappy refluff. (If you make them vines of whatever they make hedges out of in Siberia, and say that they come from the realm of the Ice Queen, you're doing a lot better - but still, you've made them plants, and that means it should be impossible to create them inside an Antiplant Shell, which doesn't apply with the Arms of the Abyss that the standard warlock makes. So either you change the mechanics, such that it's no longer a mere refluff, or you change the fluff but not enough to meet my standards.)


the purpose of a warlock is to go on indefinately. He's like the duracell bunny, he never stops becuase he has infinte resources.

Exactly, that has always been the point of him to me.

[Yora]

Since the question is asked this way:

No.

They just seem to be a guy who shots magic lasers from his fingers and has two or three special effects. That alone does not really drive me to make room for them and find a place to occupy in a fantasy world.

[Sacrieur]

I don't know why you guys keep calling the warlock a glass cannon. He can wear light armor and has D6s; that makes him MUCH tougher than a sorcerer or wizard, and he can keep blasting forever instead of getting maybe 5 blasts (at low levels; it's true that I'm not familiar with higher levels but I also tend to assume that they're extremely rare).


Ok, I think I know what you are talking about: the DnD warlock is nothing like the WoW warlock... I mean, that seems to be the whole point here... He is not a health burning, ashes turning gatlinggun of damage... No, if you watn a blaster, play a psion (was there earlier), or a mailman (sorc is a baseclass that can do that).

The glass cannon role is someone who can dish out damage, but not necessarily take it. I don't know where you got the idea a d6 is all that terrifically better than a d4, but it's not. You're going to have a hitpoint more per level, on average, than your caster buddies (who, if they're smart, will do everything in their power to get more hp). You're just as squishy as a rogue, which makes you a glass cannon. You stand behind the fighters, but in front of the squishies (usually).

And whether you like it or not, that's the role the warlock is going to play during battle. He has utility spells, but in any party with any primary caster, the warlock is going to be outshined. You could cast some spells yourself, but that's just wasting a turn you could have spent blasting so you could deal some small bit of extra damage or prevent just a little extra damage (the return wouldn't be worth it). Unless you're the only caster in the party, it's a really bad idea.

More specifically, the warlock's role needs to be a utility striker. Which means he can dish out damage with quite a bit of versatility. And yes, that includes hexing/buffing -- but only when it doesn't steal rounds when you're fighting. Or if the return is equal to or more than just attacking.



the purpose of a warlock is to go on indefinately. He's like the duracell bunny, he never stops becuase he has infinte resources. Literally. he can blast down a terrasque at some point before 10 becuase eh can jsut fly aroudn all day and night and pew-pew him. some classes tend to have a problem with that becuase they must allow the tarrasque to hurt them bcause they cannot fly (and hte money is needed for scroll of wish). So what the warlock is, is someone with infite resources, and if played in a certain way, having an answer for everything. (except maybe even pun-pun). if you play a warlock as a blaster you are not playing it optimized. (not that it is wrong). If anything the warlock is less like a wizard or sorcerer, but more like an artificer.

A tarrasque has regeneration 40 and DR 15. You're gonna be there awhile. I'm unsure if eldritch blast is something the tarrasque can reflect.



The thing is, thsi is saying that the warblade is useless becuase it can't cast fireballs all day. or that the bard is useless because he can't play the role of ubercharger very well. Or saying that a sorcerer is useless becuase he can't cast miracle. Just becuase a class is not geared towards a particular role doesn't make it useless overall (and comparable to a monk!). if you don't like how the class plays say so, but saying the class is useless anyway no matter what role or build is just appearing stupid.

A warblade has his role on the frontlines. The bard usually makes a terrific buffer. A sorcerer doesn't need to cast miracle because he can cast wish.

I'm sorry, but it does. That's how the mechanics of the game works. You're either a striker, tank, utility caster, or a waste of space (during combat). Now, if you like the flavor of the warlock, that's fine. The flavor of the warlock is really quite fun. But just because you design a class to fit a role does not mean it will actually fit that role.

This doesn't mean you can't have fun with warlock. But I don't play him because he's not that fun to play. He tries too hard not to be a glass cannon when that's exactly what he is.

[Morcleon]

A warblade has his role on the frontlines. The bard usually makes a terrific buffer. A sorcerer doesn't need to cast miracle because he can cast wish.

I'm sorry, but it does. That's how the mechanics of the game works. You're either a striker, tank, utility caster, or a waste of space (during combat). Now, if you like the flavor of the warlock, that's fine. The flavor of the warlock is really quite fun. But just because you design a class to fit a role does not mean it will actually fit that role.

This doesn't mean you can't have fun with warlock. But I don't play him because he's not that fun to play. He tries too hard not to be a glass cannon when that's exactly what he is.

A warlock can be a striker. Eldritch Claws + Rapidstrike makes this easily viable. Combine it with HFlock, and it gets pretty crazy.

[Snowbluff]

A warlock can be a striker. Eldritch Claws + Rapidstrike makes this easily viable. Combine it with HFlock, and it gets pretty crazy.

Morcleon, did you not listen to my ruling in Munchkining Warlock? EC and HF don't mix. EC is not EB, so HF Blast does not work with it. Glaivelock is pretty good alternative, though.

Warlock is very good. They just don't have enough splat support and invocations available.

[Sacrieur]

A warlock can be a striker. Eldritch Claws + Rapidstrike makes this easily viable. Combine it with HFlock, and it gets pretty crazy.

I should clarify, strikers are the proper term for glass cannons. The warlock most certainly is a striker role. It's really odd to be suggesting otherwise when his main class ability is eldritch blast.

Striker is the proper name because you don't have to be ranged to be a striker. You could be a lightning bruiser or many other kinds of things.

I've spoken before in a homebrew thread about the dangers of mixing classes into one class. A blaster is a mix of martial and casting. In the warlock's case, he gives up some versatility for more martial ability. The mistake most class creators make, however, is that they give up too much versatility for too little martial ability. It may be out of fear of creating a gestalt monster, but more often than not, D&D classes tend to be underpowered more than overpowered.

[Theoboldi]

A warlock can be a striker. Eldritch Claws + Rapidstrike makes this easily viable. Combine it with HFlock, and it gets pretty crazy.

And if dragon material isn't allowed, there still is eldritch glaive. I'm not sure about it's effectiveness compared to eldritch claws, but it allows you to do iterative attacks while still leaving you some reach.

Edit: I've been swordsage'd soundly.

[Snowbluff]

I should clarify, strikers are the proper term for glass cannons. The warlock most certainly is a striker role. It's really odd to be suggesting otherwise when his main class ability is eldritch blast.

Well, you get more invocations know than you get EB d6. That's like saying Familiar is a Wizard's primary class feature, Sacrieur.

[Morcleon]

Morcleon, did you not listen to my ruling in Munchkining Warlock? EC and HF don't mix. EC is not EB, so HF Blast does not work with it. Glaivelock is pretty good alternative, though.

Warlock is very good. They just don't have enough splat support and invocations available.

Apparently not. Somewhere in the handbook, I presume? :smallsigh: Glaivelock works too.


I should clarify, strikers are the proper term for glass cannons. The warlock most certainly is a striker role. It's really odd to be suggesting otherwise when his main class ability is eldritch blast.

Striker is the proper name because you don't have to be ranged to be a striker. You could be a lightning bruiser or many other kinds of things.

Wouldn't glass cannon be the proper name because it's the informally agreed upon one, as well as the fact that it is possible to shoot a cannon at someone from 5' away. :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

Apparently not. Somewhere in the handbook, I presume? :smallsigh: Glaivelock works too.

...


Glaivelock is pretty good alternative, though.


:smalltongue:

It's not in the handbook... yet. I might edit it in.

[Morcleon]

...



:smalltongue:

It's not in the handbook... yet. I might edit it in.

It was an acknowledgment of your quote. I'm not that inattentive... :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

It was an acknowledgment of your quote. I'm not that inattentive... :smalltongue:
I jest
...or are you? DUN DUN DUUUN! :smallsmile:

[Morcleon]

I jest
...or are you? DUN DUN DUUUN! :smallsmile:

:elan: My pluckosity inattentiveness is constant!

[Daer]

i like warlocks, there are many different style builds for them, different flavors . They have their strong points but then again can't do it all, it is party game after all most of the time.
The real problem are those tier 1-2 and maybe 3rd tier classes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@ the glass cannon comment:

The warlock has both DR and fast healing in-class as well as no compelling reason not to make con his primary ability. He will quite often have notably more HP's than a rogue and those HP's will go much further.

He may be a ceramic of some sort, but it's more brick than glass. For comparison; fighters, warblades, clerics, duskblades and the like are more steel.

[Dr.Epic]

Yes. I can have a +23 to bluff at level one with this class.:smalltongue:

[Kane0]

I like the Warlock so (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222272) very (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223940) much (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13848201&postcount=14).