Warlock; fair game?

[HellFencer]

Alright, this thread is dedicated to the Warlock base class from Complete Arcane. Many of you are familiar with this class, I'm sure. I didn't see any other threads with this topic, so I feel it safe to make one now. If there are others, I apologize and will decist posts in this thread.

Now, on to the meat of the post...

My roommate is running a game that I am playing in. He and I are both fairly open minded when it comes to gaming and whatnot, accepting that D&D has its odd moments and rules. We also try to put logic into the game, though our success seems marginal, as we just argue about it later.

When I was suggesting probable characters for said game, I had mentioned the Warlock. I had recently played one in another game I am in, and loved it. He hadn't heard of the class, so I described it as best I could. When he learned that the Eldritch Blast ability was infinite, he said "no way" with quite a few more flavorful words.

My roommate and I have argued several times over the past month concerning this topic.


His argument is that the Warlock having an infinite amount of "spells" is overpowering, because "Everyone has their limit." My counter-argument is that they give up a severe amount of versatility in order to gain said power, and their invocations 9/10's of the time work only on the Warlock.
He argues that they should either be limited in the number of times they can use it, or get tired each time they cast it, gaining some undetermined negative mechanic. I counter-argue the fact that an Eldritch Blast at 9th level (5d6) is easily matched or outweighed by a rogue's sneak attack, a mage's large pool of spells, or possibly a fighter's full attack.
He argues that after a mage has cast every single spell he knows, he is useless, whereas a Warlock is still 100% effective. I counter-argue with the fact that very few situations actually come down to a mage using every spell he knows.I have also pointed out to him the Reserve Feats, which basically allow a mage to do more or less the same thing as a Warlock, PLUS be able to cast other spells.

I ask you, the gaming community at large, to give your thoughts on the topic, give examples of similar arguments, point out flaws or things I might have overlooked, and overall opinions on the subject at hand. I would greatly appreciate the effort you could put forth to this, even as trivial as this might seem. Thank you in advance, and see you out there!

[Morty]

Well, the simplest argument that comes to mind is that while warlock can use his invocations all day, they're downright weak compared to what wizard/sorcerer can do.

[Bears With Lasers]

Essentially, he's wrong. Warlocks are weak. There are ways to make them okay, or even good if you twink hard enough (abusing Hellfire Warlock + CON recovery, say), but overall, the Warlock can't do anything really significant.

What's the wizard doing at level 7? He's throwing out Slow, Haste, Confusion, Fly, et cetera. What's the Warlock doing? 3d6, once per round. Oh noes. The fighter does more than that with each hit (it's 10.5 average damage), and the fighter gets two attacks a round--three, with haste.


Unless you're in a game that's having, like, eight encounter's a day, a wizard's basically fine when it comes to spell expenditure.

Basically, it comes down to this: what does the Warlock do, every combat round? You can point at what the wizard is doing and how it's winning the fight. The Warlock... is doing a few d6es, once per round. That's terribly, terribly unimpressive.

[The Prince of Cats]

I think the answer is that the warlock is just not the kind of class your DM is comfortable with. This is all you really need to know. If the DM says no, then you just have to respect that it is their game; find a new DM or accept the decisions of your betters.

I have heard my friends with twink-obsessions tell me how great the Warlock is and how it is better than any of the core classes. That alone is enough that I don't think I would allow one.

On the other hand, perhaps you need to lend your copy of complete arcane to the DM and let him read for himself, in his own time and at his own pace. Even if all you get is a 'you can play one for now, but if you turn out to be over-powered, you have to agree to retire the character', you still get to show the DM how the class is not overpowered.

[Zincorium]

Warlocks are nice for when you want to have nifty abilities (flying, blasting, etc.) without making unoptimized characters in your party feel bad. Wizards are 90% wombatting badass, Warlocks are 300% decent.

Seriously, as far as someone getting bent all out of shape over the 'unlimited uses' thing, just remind them that most characters without spells have a similiar thing going, fighters fighting, rogues detecting traps and warlocks don't cast spells. They use all the rules for spell like abilities except the arcane spell failure thingy, and with dexterity being the warlocks number one stat, that rarely comes up. Heck, to even use scrolls or wands they have to do the same thing that rogues do: Use Magic Device.

Edit: Twink Obsession? I'm sure you meant powergaming or some such, but uh...don't type that phrase into google, m'kay? You can't unsee things. As far as the warlock being the best class ever, that sounds like someone's either been eating paint chips or hasn't read the rules all that well.

[Green Bean]

Yeah, Warlock are definately not too powerful. Sure, they can do damage all day, but the damage they do isn't any better than say, the fighter can do all day. Tell your friend to forget the fact that the Warlock uses magic, and compare him to the fighter classes and see who does more damage. I mean, they're essentially an archer class with a few nifty add on abilities. I don't see how it could break anything.

[Bears With Lasers]

I have heard my friends with twink-obsessions tell me how great the Warlock is and how it is better than any of the core classes. That alone is enough that I don't think I would allow one.

Speaking as someone who's rather good at optimizing: your friends have no idea what they're talking about. The Warlock is nowhere NEAR one of the stronger classes in the game.

[Orzel]

Warlocks are pretty weak. They seem to be made just to emulate those TV/Comic/VG spellslingers who NEVER run out of magic but cast the same 3 weak spells if you left them alone for an hour.

Like spellcasters in a RTSes, they can shoot at stuff for 3 minutes straight and do little of value.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

My warlock of 6th level can do about three things. That's it...he can see invisible things, he can spew forth a few d6's and he can be invisible. Good lord, call the national guard. And he can only do all those things if he's wearing his nice little chain shirt. I love warlocks, really I do, with all my heart, but they're no wizards. What can wizards do by 6th level? Everything.

[Nerd-o-rama]

So...does your DM ban melee-based fighters? Rogues? They can also attack an infinite (well, arbitrarily large) number of times per day. And most of the time, a well-built fighter or rogue is doing way, way more damage than a Warlock is, especially if the Warlock lacks Eldritch Glaive to make full attacks with. So...what's the issue here? That just because an attack is "magic", it must have a daily limit?

As for invocations...they're nice, but hardly anything to write home about. The best ones either give survivability to the (squishy) Warlock or give you an extremely limited crowd control shtick. And by that level, Wizards are doing all that and more far better.

[ocato]

My first opinion of the Warlock was sort of bad as well. My friend played one and he would use spiderclimb, detect magic, and another spell or two, shoot off some sort of attribute damaging ability that I can't recall, and dealt a couple d6 a round. He had a chain shirt and roughly the same AC as me, but could get up on top of buildings and fire down. It seemed like he was able to do whatever he wanted but I didn't read the class so he may've been exaggerating his abilities.

[The Prince of Cats]

Speaking as someone who's rather good at optimizing: your friends have no idea what they're talking about. The Warlock is nowhere NEAR one of the stronger classes in the game.
You are right of course, these are the same idiots who make monks just so that they can use shuriken... (yes, they might be 'uber-kewl ninja starz', but 1d2 damage???)

[Culwch]

Warlock will shine at lower levels, when the Fighter doesn't have 17 attacks per round and the Wizard and the Cleric have less than 20 spells to cast.

Around level 10, if not sooner, Warlock starts to suck very hard, especially if you don't twink him with exotic classes and feats, and harder still if you want to play a non-evil Warlock. The one redeeming quality is that around level 12 Warlock turns part-time artificer, able to create any magical item if he has money, time and experience to spare. That's what makes him a perfect cohort or ally, but in the party his performance is very underwhelming.

Trust me, I've played a Warlock for about a year, from levels 7 to 19, and it was not enjoyable at all. The only two instances when a warlock may be useful on higher levels: You're racing against the clock and have no time to rest between encounters (thus mages have to save their spells for the unknown number of encounters with unknown forces, which also forces them to take a suboptimal spell choices as opposed to the situation when you can scry, prepare and do a surgical strike with just the right spells), or when there is a lot of downtime and the DM is lenient with item crafting, allowing the Warlock to craft a lot of trinkets that will raise his usefulness.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I remember when a bunch of people I played with first heard of warlock and considered them awesome due to those infinite eldritch blasts. I also remember killing them without any problems late into a one-shot where they decided that warlocks can effectively do NOTHING. They're just super weak spellcasters. With none of the defenses I'm used to putting up with when rogue-stabbing casters.

[Kultrum]

Me and my friend have this argument daily. He has found like the one cheap build for a warlock and was such baned them from his game because: If you take the invocation that increases your range, and you take the invocation that lets you make darkness, and you take the one that lets you send it though a weapon, and you get the one that lets to see in the darkness, and you start at your max range, and you back up EVERY round, then, supposedly, its cheap. but you know who else can do exactly that, a drow fighter at a lower ECL.

[Zeta Kai]

I love the Warlock for flavor reasons, & I think that they can be a viable choice for someone who isn't concerned with powergaming. I too failed to understand their abilities, thinking that they were the wizard-killer.

And I, like your friend, HF, was very, very wrong.

Warlocks are unfortunately, no more powerful than a melee fighter. I've been working on some homebrew buffs for the Warlock, but as per the RAW, your friend is misguided. What can I say? First impressions can be hell.

[The Valiant Turtle]

The thing to remember with the warlock is the 4 encounters per day guideline. If your party regularly has more than 4 encounters per day the warlock is decent.

The question to ask your DM is how often has he seen spellcasters completely cast out past the first few levels?

Warlocks may seem powerful, but the way the game is normally played they aren't. With the introduction of reserve feats, they are really quite pathetic. If anything is going to break the warlock it's his invocations, not eldritch blast.

Edit:
Kultrum, in addition to being not that impressive, there are other problems with that combo. Eldritch spear is the invocation that extends range, and Hideous blow lets you channel it through a melee weapon only, so I don't actually understand what it's doing in there. Both of those are Blast Shape invocations, which means you can only use one at a time. Also, the darkness spell specifically mentions that darkvision doesn't work in it (and the darkvision spell says it doesn't work in magical darkness). Of course, 3.5 Darkness isn't near as powerful as 3.0, all 3.5 does is grant 20% concealment. Actually, you don't need any sort of special vision to see people who are outside the area of effect anyway. Sounds like somebody didn't check all the details. Remember, if a player tries something that seems a bit too powerful, there's a good chance they are creatively interpreting the rules.

[Kultrum]

What's the wizard doing at level 7? He's throwing out Slow, Haste, Confusion, Fly, et cetera. What's the Warlock doing? 3d6, once per round. Oh noes. The fighter does more than that with each hit (it's 10.5 average damage), and the fighter gets two attacks a round--three, with haste.
actually its 4d6 once again oh noes, Meanwhile the wizard is casting Greater Invisibility on the rogue... Who's stronger?

[Morty]

It's funny actually, because on some other board I've also seen people who didn't see warlock in book, but "from what I've heard he's completely overpowered" and then other people, who had read Complete Arcane, proven them wrong.
The Warlock is indeed master of The Wrong First Impression.
I don't care about warlock personally, since while idea is interesting, they're weak mechanically and flavor is idiotic.

[Darion]

Straight from the book warlock is only useful in a deliberately low stat game. None of their abilities have a real key modifier (yes, Cha for those few invocations that require saves) and thier abilities don't reqiure high stats (save, skill bonii, touch attacks, etc). They are also useful in extremly low level games (1-5) that aren't expected to advance further.

If you branch out in a few very specific paths with forethough and planning, the class can rival most non-Wizard/Cleric/Druids for what it does. I'm currently running a high level (pre-epic) warlock with 33d6ish worth of Eldritch Blast a round, and it makes for decent ranged support allowing the party arcanist to focus on utility duties. A Warlock/Chameleon build is an item crafter that can make anything (though, of course, not as good as the artificer). Its also worthwhile as a dip for a few builds (diplomacy types gain a +6 bonus and a "they can never loose it light crossbow").

But in general, the Warlock is simply an archer with a few extra abilities (the type often sought through party buffs and magic items). He doesn't have to worry about running out of arrows, but he can't easilly buff his damage, and I'm sorry, a few extra d6's do NOT balance out multiple attacks with the usual damage bonus of a well designed archer.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yeah, the Warlock is much like the mystic theurge. Upon first hearing about it, it sounds like it's a lot more powerful than it really is. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060616a) But then once you go ahead and do a more in-depth analysis and maybe actually try it out for a game or two, you find there's nothing to be worried about. It actually turns out to be much weaker than the initial concept seems. You just have to realize that the warlock is coming from a different direction in terms of how the abilities are designed and balanced.


The best ones either give survivability to the (squishy) Warlock...
Yeah, a character with only light armor and a d6 hit die can rarely keep going all day, regardless of his or her offensive resources. That's one thing people often forget. Hit points are a resource that limits the number of of encounters a character can take, just like spells and expendable magic items. You certainly can't make the argument that Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues, all with their unlimited offensive capabilities, can keep going all day, can you?


You are right of course, these are the same idiots who make monks just so that they can use shuriken... (yes, they might be 'uber-kewl ninja starz', but 1d2 damage???)
C'mon, if you're gonna do a shuriken build, at least have the decency to go Ninja. Then you can ghost step a few times per day and get some worthwhile sudden strike damage. Make 'em deadly precision shuriken (from Complete Adventurer), and it's not too bad.

Of course, you also sit there wondering why you bother with that initial 1d2 damage, too... :smallwink:


skill bonii
What's a bonii (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bonii)?

[TheThan]

I’ll admit when I first looked at the warlock I though “omg brokeness”, I put the book down and figured I’d never let one in a game I ran. Then after a few weeks I picked complete arcane up again and flipped it open to the warlock and read the entry a bit more closely, this is when I realized they aren’t that powerful at all. Sure they have some neat abilities but they certainly aren’t up there with clerics/druids and wizard/sorcerers when it comes to shear power.

No the problem with the class is I simply don’t like it. It simply boils down to the mechanics, I don’t like the non-spell casting aspect of it at all. To me Warlocks are supposed to be Uber bad guy spellcasters, not semi evil non-casters.

Accually I like the warlock from WOW more than anything.

[Kel_Arath]

alright dudes, heres where its at. yes wizards are powerful but they do run out, in good campaigns there arent just one or two encounters a day. and yes, the wizard can haste people, or greater invis the rogue, but these are all multi person combos. the warlock can just earthen grasp somebody, then blast them while they are dealing with a grappling hand, then Flee the Scene leaving behind a greater image, while blasting them from 250 feet away. then of course fighters can do more damage, but warlocks only have to make touch attacks. there are alot more combos i can think of proving the warlocks are cheap but i dont want to. and yes, while ive said how cheap they are i admit, when it gets to higher levels, the become slightly less overpowered in comparison. slightly

[Latronis]

Actually when i first read it i thought it was crap, it's like the sorcerer but with even less versatility and without any of the big guns.

then i gave it a go and found it a decent little battlefied control character that can get by through attrition.

Then not too long ago i came across the hellfire warlock and i loved it.

It's an interesting class but zomg broken is not true at all it could even do with a fair power boost.

So now how i play a warlock is as a face with some battlefield control then nip into a hard to reach place and ping away from safety. With a little hellfire should it prove neccassary ;)

[ZekeArgo]

alright dudes, heres where its at. yes wizards are powerful but they do run out, in good campaigns there arent just one or two encounters a day.

Yeah, a normal campaign has about four encounters per day. Still not enough to drain a wizard/cleric/whatever unless they are way above level.


and yes, the wizard can haste people, or greater invis the rogue, but these are all multi person combos. the warlock can just earthen grasp somebody, then blast them while they are dealing with a grappling hand, then Flee the Scene leaving behind a greater image, while blasting them from 250 feet away.Or the wizard can just Solid Fog a group of them to be delt with later, Slow/Web them all to make things a hell of a lot easier, throw around Orbs of Sound/Acid/Whatever if the thing has SR and isn't easily controlled, Teleport people places, cast Rope Trick to sleep/ambush, and a huge list of other things.


then of course fighters can do more damage, but warlocks only have to make touch attacks. there are alot more combos i can think of proving the warlocks are cheap but i dont want to.

So there are all of these "combos" that you don't have the time to show us? From what I've seen 4d6 1/round is not going to be doing a whole hell of a lot to harm opponents when the actual archers (warmages and fighter/ranger/rogues) are doing a whole hell of a lot more damage.


and yes, while ive said how cheap they are i admit, when it gets to higher levels, the become slightly less overpowered in comparison. slightlyIf by higher levels you mean level 5 or so then yeah, other than the whole "vastly underpowered in comparison" thing.

They just can't do much to effect things in a single fight. Sure they have a lot of style but when it comes down to it your still only dealing damage to a single target every round, and its only a single attack that really isn't that powerful. Hell, even with Hideous Blow you can *still* only take a stanard action to channel the blast through a melee attack, so your making 1 attack per round. Couple that with the fact that most combat starts at around 60-80' and theres no real reason to take the ranged blast shape either.

The warlock as it stands is just like the monk when it comes to combat: can do a whole lot of things, but none of the things it can do is very useful or fight-stopping.

The Dragonfire Adept on the other hand, is just about perfect though.

[HellFencer]

Wow, this recieved alot more attention than I thought it was going to get. Please, keep the comments coming, as you are showing even me aspects that I hadn't thought of for the class.

Also, I will try to get my DM to post in this thread, concerning his ideas of why it is an overpowered class.

Thank you to all whom have posted!

[hr]
I agree that when I first opened the Complete Arcane and read about the Warlock have infinite Eldritch Blasts, I was like "ZOMG, overpowered". Then, I let a trusted friend that despises twinking try one out. We thought that it would be a fair chance to see what they can really do. And I admit, I was extremely hesitant to let him do it. At the low level they were at (3rd or so), the Warlock did pretty well. They were fighting six seacats that were meant more as a deterant. Anywho, the Druid entangled them, and the Warlock and Sorc went to town on the cats.

Later on in the same game, me and the trusted friend switched places and he took the game on a Spelljammer trek. I played a Warlock, but with a slight variant that interpretted my Eldritch Blast and Invocations as items that I had crafted (as per the gnome artificer PrC). My stuff wasn't effected by spell resistance, but it could be taken away / disarmed / sundered, etc. This was used for flavor of the character, rather than an actual mechanic. By now we are 9th level, and I'm doing 5d6 per round. However, that's once per round, and the Druid we have outdoes me on damage on a regular basis, with Sudden Maxed Vortex of Teeth's.

Basically, I do a very few things; I blast (with 250' reach and attempt to catch them on fire), turn invisible (which is honestly very marginally useful), dispel things (used once, and accidentally dispelled a Call Lightning spell on an ally), and create obscuring mist. Beyond that, we usually let the Rogue/Sorc do the talking / haggling.

Overall, I'd say they are on par with the Dragon Shaman (read: lame).

[Bears With Lasers]

alright dudes, heres where its at. yes wizards are powerful but they do run out, in good campaigns there arent just one or two encounters a day. and yes, the wizard can haste people, or greater invis the rogue, but these are all multi person combos.
Or the wizard can cast Confusion, and pretty much end the fight all by himself. Or Glitterdust. Or solid walls + Damage-Over-Time spells. The wizard is the most powerful character, offensively, in D&D.
Also, y'know... D&D is played in a party. So you have those other people there.

I wouldn't define a campaign with, say, eight encounters a day, every day, as "good".
The default for D&D--what it's balanced for--is four encounters a day. The wizard can get through four (or five, or six) encounters just fine. And after level 9, he can just teleport the party away to rest when he's out of spells; he can throw up a Rope Trick for them to rest safely in earlier than that.


the warlock can just earthen grasp somebody, then blast them while they are dealing with a grappling hand, then Flee the Scene leaving behind a greater image, while blasting them from 250 feet away. then of course fighters can do more damage, but warlocks only have to make touch attacks.Earthen Grasp sucks. It's not going to help much. Really. Who cares if you can do it at will if it's not worth doing in the first place?
Sure, you can Flee the Scene, leaving behind an image... for one round. Then you can fly and move away, while blasting them.
Blasting them... once a round. For a few d6es. Meanwhile, the fighter's doing, what, twice your damage output with each swing, which he's getting three of now. The wizard just aims a save-or-lose at the enemy's weak save.

The Warlock is, much like the monk, good at keeping himself alive.
He's bad at actually contributing to the party. Combat lasts, what, four, five rounds?


there are alot more combos i can think of proving the warlocks are cheap but i dont want to. and yes, while ive said how cheap they are i admit, when it gets to higher levels, the become slightly less overpowered in comparison. slightlyHow are those combos cheap? You're doing minimal quantities of damage, while staying the hell out of the way to keep yourself alive. You're plinking the troll for a few d6es, and it doesn't care. It's worried about the other party members, who are doing something that actually matters.

Warlocks aren't overpowered. They're not even good at anything other than keeping yourself alive.
Not Dying is NOT an ability that helps the party, when it's all you can do.
Seriously, at level 20, 9d6 once per round? That's completely negligible. It's a little over 30 average damage. Vitriolic Blast helps a little, if the monster doesn't have acid resistance, but not much.

Combat usually lasts, like, three to six rounds. Sometimes longer. That's a limited number of standard/full-round actions. Other characters can contibute something significant with each of those.
The Warlock can't.


Actually when i first read it i thought it was crap, it's like the sorcerer but with even less versatility and without any of the big guns.

then i gave it a go and found it a decent little battlefied control character that can get by through attrition.
It's a marginally tolerable battlefield controller, once it has Black Tentacles and Wall of Perilous Flame and Chain Blast and Repelling Blast.
That takes quite a while. A battlefield controller who can't really control until late in his career? Not so great.


Edit: your experience with the Warlock is how it often plays. it can get better than that, especially with the new material in Dragon Magic and Complete Mage, but by and large, you're hard to kill but mostly ineffective.
I confess that when I first saw it, back when I knew D&D less well, I thought the Warlock was overpowered, too.
Then I figured out--wait, no, it's not.
I mean, hey. Back then, people thought that the Mystic Theurge was ZOMG UBAR.

[Dausuul]

I ask you, the gaming community at large, to give your thoughts on the topic, give examples of similar arguments, point out flaws or things I might have overlooked, and overall opinions on the subject at hand. I would greatly appreciate the effort you could put forth to this, even as trivial as this might seem. Thank you in advance, and see you out there!

As others have pointed out--melee fighters get unlimited swings of their swords, archers get unlimited shots of their bows (well, they could run out of arrows, but in all my twenty years of gaming I've never seen it happen), so why is it so broken that the warlock gets unlimited blasts of his eldritch? The touch attack part of it is nice, but it's more than counterbalanced by the fact that the warlock doesn't get iterative attacks and can't jack up his damage with magic weapons and Power Attack and such. Plus he has to worry about spell resistance at higher levels.

There's a bit more question about the invocations, but what it boils down to is that any given non-combat magic effect is only useful once in a while. Sometimes it's useful to be able to turn invisible. Sometimes it's useful to be able to fly. But "sometimes" means a regular Vancian caster can generally provide for any given need 90% of the time, as well as about fifteen other needs. The warlock can provide for two or three needs 100% of the time. The Vancian casters are much more effective overall.

As a DM, I would far rather have a warlock in my game than a wizard. With a warlock, you get to know what he can do, and then you can plan for it. With a wizard, you never know when he's going to bust out that one spell you forgot to take into account when planning the adventure, and wreck the whole plot.

[Morty]

The default for D&D--what it's balanced for--is four encounters a day. The wizard can get through four (or five, or six) encounters just fine. And after level 9, he can just teleport the party away to rest when he's out of spells; he can throw up a Rope Trick for them to rest safely in earlier than that.

You know, the fact that wizard can escape easily and/or use lame spell to rest safely doesn't mean that class who can't do this is weak. Warlocks are weak and have dumb flavor, but that's really not an argument.
What warlock does good is making first impression. At first glance, almost everyone thinks it's overpowered.
In the campaign I'm currently playing warlock would suck even more, because while we can't usually rest whenever we can(and I refuse to even touch Rope Trick, not to mention I'm too low level for it to last long enough), but we aren't spending most of our time fighting.

[Arbitrarity]

He's not saying that makes warlocks suck, he's saying it's much harder to put a wizard in a situation where he HAS to run out of spells.

[Variable Arcana]

On the positive side -- Warlock can make a very interesting one or two level dip for non-primary-caster classes.

Also... worth noting that between Chaining (--> multiple targets) and the various save-or-be-less-effective eldritch essences, the Warlock, even at level 6 is considerably more effective than some are suggesting in this thread.

Still not as powerful as most other classes.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I think the really terrible thing is that you can build an NPC class warrior to be more combat effective than a warlock. Just get him a greatsword and power attack.

[The_Snark]

I think the really terrible thing is that you can build an NPC class warrior to be more combat effective than a warlock. Just get him a greatsword and power attack.

..More effective against low-AC, high-HP enemies, who can't fly or use any other method of defending themselves other than sitting there and taking the hits? And that's better than a warlock who uses only Eldritch Blast. Factor in some of the nicer invocations, such as Chilling Tentacles or Eldritch Glaive, and the warlock is going to be a lot better in most situations, including a straight fight with the warrior.

I rather like the warlock class. I'm not going to try to claim it's powerful; it isn't very powerful. It's a support and ranged attack character, definitely not a caster. It might not have the skills and damage output that, say, a scout with Greater Manyshot would have, but it makes up for that with invocations; get Fell Flight to replace every movement skill, Walk Unseen to replace stealth, and Voidsense to make Spot/Listen mostly unnecessary, if you like. It sacrifices the damage potential of an archer for some magical abilities; Chilling Tentacles, the ability to hit multiple targets with blast essences, the ability to inflict nasty conditions with eldritch essence invocations. It could use a few boosts, maybe some automatic blast shape/eldritch essence feats (like the Dragonfire Adept gets), but it's not unplayable as-is.

[Snooder]

The Warlock class imho is very nicely balanced. It's not the swiss army knife people are used to from a spellcaster, but with the right selection of invocations, it can work very nicely.

Case in point, in a ravenloft campaign i played in, one of the other PCs built a Warlock with Spiderwalk, Flee the Scene, Hideous blow and Eldritch Spear. He was basically unhittable and would simply do the same 2 actions, dimension door to a corner of the roof then next round fire off an eldritch blast. Usually the mobs were confused enough to keep attacking the image he left behind so he was never specifically targeted.

He even saved us from a TPK once when we got swarmed by zombies. He managed to dimension door everyone else in the party away while my Pally did the Pally thing and gave his life in sacrifice.

However, he was not taking out entire groups of zombies or "winning" combat. He just stayed there and provided consisted support.

EDIT: btw when saying that ranged fighter is better than a Warlock, u forget that a Eldritch Blast is a TOUCH attack and thus usually has a lower AC to hit.

[Aquillion]

Hmm. Here's something that should possibly go in another thread, but... what would you people do to make a warlock useful? They don't have to be as good as a 'normal' full casters, of course, but it'd be nice if they could at least be average mechanically.

Some possibilities that occured to me:

Give them some parts of the Artificer. Hey, they already have Decieve Item and Imbue Item, right? If they got a few more of the artificer's perks (not all of them, but a few) they could be a decent class, relying on their innate abilities for weak encounters and specially-made magic items for harder ones. This would have to be done carefully, since Artificers are, well, broken, but it could work. One idea I had which would be a bit flavorful would be to let them invest their stat points in magical items instead of spending xp to create them... I don't know what the exchange rate would be, but they'd put a point of their strength or something into an object instead of paying X xp. They could reclaim the stat points by deconstructing the object. There would probably also be a limit to the number of stat points they can have 'out' at any given time, based on their level... although, this system probably couldn't be allowed for creating items that are 'used up' in any fashion, for obvious reasons.

Or add 'weapons' that contribute to their blasts--maybe magical items they can wear to add effects or damage to their blasts, maybe rods, wands, or staves that enhance them. A Rod of Twin Blasts with 50 charges could help a lot, say.

[Shisumo]

Where's eldritch glaive from, and what does it do?

[Hamster_Ninja]

Its in Dragon Magic, and it allows them to make an iterative attacks with the caveat that they must use it as a reach weapon with a range of 10 feet.

[Bears With Lasers]

Not quite iterative attacks. They only get extra attacks based on BAB--they don't get extra attacks from Haste and the like.

[Agatsuma]

The problems most people seem to have with warlocks lie in the comparisons. If you compare it to a sorceror/wizard, of course it is going to look bad. It does not have nearly as many spells. If you compare it to a fighty-type, of course it is going to look bad. It does not kill things as well (assuming the fighty-type gets its full attack). The warlock is not meant to be a replacement wizard, or a replacement fighter, which is openly said in its description.

The warlock is meant to be a support character. The fact that critics compare it to both casters and warriors shows it is obviously not meant to be either one. The warlock is like a more combat-oriented bard (though given the attitude some have towards bards, this probably does not help). Instead of enchanments and utilities, the warlock focuses on shooting and battlefield control. Yes, a wizard or fighter could do the controlling/smashing better, but if you already have both (and you should) a warlock can help take some of the work off of both.

[Piccamo]

But what does it support? It doesn't aide the party in any way. Everything it does helps out itself.

[bloodhawk]

At low levels, Shatter can be extremely useful (At least, it was when I played one).

[Epiphanis]

I'll step up and say a few words on behalf of the Warlock, which is a hard class to gauge because it functions a bit differently from what most of us are used to.

Looking strictly in terms of damage per round, warlocks quickly lag behind both martial classes and other arcane spellcasters, as numerous posters have pointed out already. However, this is mitigated by the warlock's debuffing abilities, courtesy of the Eldritch Essence invocations. Each round the warlock is not just dealing damage, he's also casting the equivalent of a debuff spell that has been Heightened to the highest level spell a sorcerer of the same level could cast. That does NOT suck.

Many players underestimate the importance of these debuffs, in part because to really use them effectively you require teamwork. In a one-on-one battle above, say, level 4 or so, making an opponent shaken or nauseated isn't such a big deal -- but when you have 3+ teammates along with yourself who are 10% less likely to be hit and 10% more likely to beat the opponent's saving throw, plus a little damage on the side -- that's something solid.

I look at warlock as bards in reverse -- the virtue of the bard is to make allies more effective; the virtue of the warlock is to make enemies less so.

[HellFencer]

In my experience, they can indirectly help out the party. While not directly casting Mage Armor or any buffs on PC's, they can utilize a number of de-buffs against enemies, such as a lowered dex score, making it easier for EVERYONE to hit him. Or if they are blinded, then the Meat Shield (TM) doesn't get whacked next round, etc.

Ultimately, the thing that still bothers my DM about this class, is that his E.B. is unlimited. He says "Spellcasters of any kind eventually run out of spells". I tell him that that sort of thing doesn't happen very often. He says "Fighter types eventually have to stop, while the warlock just keeps blasting away". I tell him that the warlock isn't a god; he still has to sleep just like everyone else. His only solution seems to be giving the warlock some high limit as to the number of times he can do these things, because otherwise its an unfair advantage. Blargh.... And for some reason, he seems to be refusing to post on here to explain himself. Oh well...

EDIT: I got simu'd while I was posting, but I agree with everything Epiphanis said just above my post.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Blargh.... And for some reason, he seems to be refusing to post on here to explain himself. Oh well...

Personally, I would refuse to play unless he would at least poke his head in here and explain himself.

Such a request normally holds no harm, so I find his refusal quite suspect.

[kamikasei]

He says "Fighter types eventually have to stop, while the warlock just keeps blasting away".

What makes fighters have to stop, and how is the warlock immune to that? A flying, invisible-at-will warlock may be harder to damage than a fighter (may be; the fighter's likely got a better AC) but is more fragile... and isn't flying or invisible for the first many levels.

[Epiphanis]

Personally, I would refuse to play unless he would at least poke his head in here and explain himself.

Such a request normally holds no harm, so I find his refusal quite suspect.

Blecch. If I were DMing and somebody tried this with me, I'd say Sayonara and show him the door. The DM is under no obligation to justify campaign decisions like which races or classes to allow, and trying to pressure him otherwise is the mark of a problem player. Play the game he runs, or don't. Using pressure tactics to change the rules is bad gaming.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Blecch. If I were DMing and somebody tried this with me, I'd say Sayonara and show him the door. The DM is under no obligation to justify campaign decisions like which races or classes to allow, and trying to pressure him otherwise is the mark of a problem player. Play the game he runs, or don't. Using pressure tactics to change the rules is bad gaming.

Okay, pressure tactics aren't the best. But come on, if a DM says no to a simple request like this, either something's up he won't say, or he's not a good DM to be playing with in the first place.

"Hey, I've been discussing it on a forum on the internet. The guys there had some interesting things to say about the warlock. Could you take a look at the thread too and maybe post your thoughts about the warlock in too for the discussion? That would be awesome"

Doesn't sound like too much of a request to me.

[Variable Arcana]

Re: DMs: The DM's creating a world for you to play in, and doing the work to keep it going. If he doesn't know enough about the Warlock to feel comfortable including one, then you'll have to play a different class. (It's just like the "no-psionics" issue.)

Re: Warlocks: Still underpowered -- it seems to me like the main problem is that they don't get enough invocations. What about upping it to #invocations=class level. A 5th level warlock would know 5 least invocations instead of 3; a 10th level warlock would know 5 least and 5 lesser invocations; and so on...

[jjpickar]

I like Warlocks and I don't think they're at all overpowered (Wiz/Cleric/Druid they're all better) but I don't think thats the real issue here. The DM doesn't like the Warlock. So what? Just play as something else. The DM gets to say what is and isn't in his game and he obviously doesn't want the Warlock in it.

I play with a DM that has an irrational dislike of Psionics (no offense to him I just honestly don't understand it) but I still play in his game. He's a good DM and I've had lots of fun anyway. Do I sometimes want to be a Psion? Sure I do. But I 'm not going to ruin his and my game experience by making a big issue about it. My advice is just play as a different class and you'll probably have fun anyway.

[HellFencer]

Well, the issue here isn't that I am being beligerant about playing a Warlock. In fact, I just gave up and am playing a summoner now. The point of this thread is just for future reference with said DM. I'm just trying to gain some insight into this and possibly see if he will become ok with it. If, after the dust clears here, he is still against it, I just won't play one in his game (obviously) nor will I ask to.

[jjpickar]

Sorry I was a little bit, er, vehement. Being a DM does that eventually. I misunderstood you're position. I hope you have a good time with the game.

[Variable Arcana]

My guess would be that it's just like psionics -- once he's played in a game where there's a Warlock character, he'll begin to get a more concrete idea of what they are like -- and once they're familiar he won't have any trouble including one in a game he runs.

Experience is worth a thousand explanations.

[Agatsuma]

But what does it support? It doesn't aide the party in any way. Everything it does helps out itself.

That is like saying the fighter does not aid the party because all it does is swing a sword at enemies. Epiphanis put it well. Sure, a lot of the invocations only aid the warlock, but everybody benefits from a sickened enemy with shattered armor. You do not have to directly help the team in order for the team to benefit.

[Larrin]

ahh, warlocks. While some have dissed their flavor their flavor is what has me spellbound to them...i can't get it out of my head, it fits so perfectly with several character ideas. Are they under powered? YES! Are they selfish? YES! Do they need fixing? YES! But i don't care...its a love thing.

Besides, alot of this can be fixed. Dragon fire adepts gave the notion of seperating essences and invocations, defintiely need. More skill points, defintiely, several abilites require them to have UMD, on top of the concentration and spellcraft a caster already "needs" so they merit a bump.

but where they need help is the invocations. They don't need to get more per level up....(well maybe a few more :P) but the ones they have need to be more useful. Not more powerful, but actually worth investing in. The warlock has many invocations that are one trick ponies, and in a couple cases .03 trick dead ponies. The warlock doesn't have enough tricks for anyone of them to be one trick ponies, they need breadth. for example: one invocation is a cloud of darkness around you that is in fact filled with a bat swarm.......ummmm........yeah......this is not applicable to alot of situations, and most of the ones you could use it in are ones the warlock should be wanting to be in (right smack dab in the middle of combat). give him jacknife type invocations so he doesn't invest what little magical knowledge in a useless thing like that (i mean, it sounds like a neat idea, but when is it ever actually usefull). He has a couple all around useful spells (dispelling, shatter, invisibility, skill buffs) but he also has alot of dead weight that few players would touch, making him seem ever more weak. I don't think the warlock needs more power, he needs more flexibility with the little power he has. I don't want POWER i want fun, Warlocks promise this (to me at least, they fit my style), but don't deliver it yet.

still, i love them. I don't need mechanics to back this up, i'm allowed to love them.

[Morty]

Funny thing, because in my case it's mechanics that makes me interested in warlock, but flavor is dumb. They're based on interesting idea-unlimited uses per day, but nothing impressive- but I loathe any class based on bloodlines, ancestry, etc.

[Person_Man]

General Damage Progression by Category:

Skirmish: +1.4 per level, Precision Restictions
Sneak Attack: +1.75 per level, Precision Restrictions
Eldritch Blast: +1.75 per level
Full BAB class with Power Attack: +2 per level, Variable To-Hit (http://direpress.bin.sh/tools/power.html)
Full Caster: +3.5 per level, limited uses per day
Full BAB class with Leap Attack+Shock Trooper: +4 per level, charge only


So, it's pretty clear to me that Eldritch Blast is towards the bottom of the damage totem pole. Furthermore, due to a lack of supporting feats and PrC (Hellfire Warlock (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061207a&page=3) being the exception) its very hard to improve a Warlock. But other classes have access to a wide variety of ways to improve their damage progression. For example, metamagic is very, very easy to abuse. But even my beloved but lowly Scout can get a very respectable 50ish damage per round at 10th level using Greater Manyshot and Improved Skirmish.

Furthermore, just dealing damage is an ineffective way to win combat in D&D. The most effective way is through battlefield control and No Save spells. Once your enemy is screwed, you can then deal damage at your leisure. So its not really important how high your damage output is, as long as its respectable enough to kill a CR appropriate enemy in 1-3 rounds. This basic truth of D&D combat means that damage optimization is secondary to just being a full caster with the right spells on hand.


So, if you're just worried about winning combat, then:

Full Casters > Melee Builds > Skill Monkeys > Hybrid Classes > Warlocks


If you're concerned with toolbox usefulness outside of combat, then:

Full Casters > Skill Monkeys > Hybrid Classes > Warlocks > Melee Builds


So, Warlocks are the worst at dealing damage in the game, and the second worst at toolbox usefulness outside of combat.

[Mr. Moogle]

I dont know that your alking about! Warlocks may be the most broken class in D&D as we know it!

here is my stratagy for a level 1 warlock
race: human
feats:extra invocation (devils sight), weapon foucus ranged touch
invocations: devils sight, darkness

Combat!
round1: take 5foot step away, Cast darkness on self
round2: Cast devils sight
all rounds thereafter: Blast Away!!!

and that is howcome warlocks are overpowered, thank you. :smallbiggrin:

[Innis Cabal]

the guy is way wrong here, Warlock is one of the best and well thought out class's in the game, and the power is not even close to uber...and Mr. Moogle...thats not over powered when your only doing 1d6 points of damage. Thats called tactics, if every class with tactics behind it was over powered every class woudl need to be nerfed

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Combat!
round1: take 5foot step away, Cast darkness on self
round2: Cast devils sight
all rounds thereafter: Blast Away!!!

and that is howcome warlocks are overpowered, thank you. :smallbiggrin:
If the less than impressive 20% miss chance really bothers your opponent that much, there's always dispel magic and continual flame. Sure, Mr. Warlock can put it back up again, but that takes another action. Keeps 'im busy while your friends take advantage of the light.

If you have the spell available, there's also daylight which doesn't have to be spent dispelling the darkness, and instead can be cast on your melee fella's weapon, and it will negate the darkness with which it overlaps.

[Flawless]

Warlocks are a good chioce for solo adventures, but working as part of group of non-commoners they don't add much. They can make good scouts, though.

[Dhavaer]

Warlocks should get prestidigitation at will. Because you can never have too much prestidigitation.
Would giving free fiendish bloodline feats be a good balance?

[Sendal]

Its not realy fair to compare the warlock to wizards and the like. Although they are simmilar in flavour with the flashy magic and such, they play more like archers with a few useful "utility" spells (like fell flight)

having said that, detect magic and dispell at will?

magic trap? what magic trap.

[Person_Man]

I dont know that your alking about! Warlocks may be the most broken class in D&D as we know it!

here is my stratagy for a level 1 warlock
race: human
feats:extra invocation (devils sight), weapon foucus ranged touch
invocations: devils sight, darkness

Combat!
round1: take 5foot step away, Cast darkness on self
round2: Cast devils sight
all rounds thereafter: Blast Away!!!

and that is howcome warlocks are overpowered, thank you. :smallbiggrin:

1) Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) only provides 20% concealment, and a Warlock is limited to light armor and no shields. Any class wearing full armor and carrying a shield (or using an animated shield) will be hit less.

2) That tactic is pretty useless unless you're playing a solo campaign, because your fellow party members don't have Devil's Sight, thus when they attack an enemy in the Darkness they also have a 20% miss chance.

3) That tactic can be duplicated by using Darkness and Faerie Fire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/faerieFire.htm) together, except better.

4) A 1st level Warlock is fragile enough to be killed by a single hit from most attacks. Warlocks have 6+Con hit points, anyone using a greatsword deals 2d6+(1.5*Str) damage.

5) You only deal 1d6 points of damage per turn.

6) Once you get past 1st level, you still suck because your damage scales so poorly and you have a limited selection of Invocations which duplicate a couple of useful spells. Half-casters (Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, etc) with the Spell Compendium are just as effective, but they also get full BAB, more hit points, better armor, other class abilities, etc.

[Flawless]

1) Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) only provides 20% concealment, and a Warlock is limited to light armor and no shields. <snip>


You are right... but why does darkness only provide 20% concealment, whereas invisibility provides 50%? It seems strange to me.

[Dhavaer]

You are right... but why does darkness only provide 20% concealment, whereas invisibility provides 50%? It seems strange to me.

Because Darkness provides shadowy illumination. It's stupid, but being in Darkness is actually being in very dim light. They can still easily see you.

[Bears With Lasers]

That's not stupid.

You know what's stupid?

That if you cast Darkness in a pitch-black room, you can suddenly @#$!ing see! Argh! *kicks WotC in the face*

[Dhavaer]

They really should have dropped the level on that. Hell, Modern has a cantrip that does the same thing and more, although getting cantrips in Modern is a little trickier than in D&D. Mood lighting is a great name for a spell, though.

[Roethke]

You are right... but why does darkness only provide 20% concealment, whereas invisibility provides 50%? It seems strange to me.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Try walk around on a moonless night vs. walking around with your eyes closed.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

3) That tactic can be duplicated by using Darkness and Faerie Fire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/faerieFire.htm) together, except better.
Darkness is 2nd level. Faerie fire won't work, as "a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally".


Because Darkness provides shadowy illumination. It's stupid, but being in Darkness is actually being in very dim light. They can still easily see you.
Indeed. Darkness only makes it as dark as, say, your bedroom with a full moon's light shining through the window. You can still make objects out well enough to know where they are. You just can't make out details. It's not the total darkness it used to be in previous editions.

[Kultrum]

That if you cast Darkness in a pitch-black room, you can suddenly @#$!ing see! Argh! *kicks WotC in the face*

ouch! please stop hurting my brain!... and kick them again for me

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That if you cast Darkness in a pitch-black room, you can suddenly @#$!ing see! Argh! *kicks WotC in the face*
Honestly, I think that gives the spell a certain charm. :smallbiggrin:

[Flawless]

Because Darkness provides shadowy illumination. It's stupid, but being in Darkness is actually being in very dim light. They can still easily see you.

Well, that answers my question. Does deeper darkness create true darkness, though? And if so, could warlocks gain access to it via some higher invocation? Some obscure splatbook, maybe?

[Roethke]

Well, that answers my question. Does deeper darkness create true darkness, though? And if so, could warlocks gain access to it via some higher invocation? Some obscure splatbook, maybe?

Actually deeper darkness is a bit of misnomer as well. It should be called wider darkness orlonger darkness.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deeperDarkness.htm

I think some heavy inter-edition editing went on. It was easily one of the most abusable/useful spells in 2nd ed.

[Dhavaer]

Well, that answers my question. Does deeper darkness create true darkness, though? And if so, could warlocks gain access to it via some higher invocation? Some obscure splatbook, maybe?

No, deeper darkness is just bigger and lasts longer.

[Flawless]

No, deeper darkness is just bigger and lasts longer.

Hmm, that sounds crapy. I mean deeper darkness ought to be... you know: deeper. So there is no way to magically create true darkness like in Salvatore's novels in 3.5e?

[Roethke]

Hmm, that sounds crapy. I mean deeper darkness ought to be... you know: deeper. So there is no way to magically create true darkness like in Salvatore's novels in 3.5e?

Well, Blindness in large doses has the desired effect. But I have a feeling that's not what you're going for.

[dragonwings]

I dont know that your alking about! Warlocks may be the most broken class in D&D as we know it!

here is my stratagy for a level 1 warlock
race: human
feats:extra invocation (devils sight), weapon foucus ranged touch
invocations: devils sight, darkness

Combat!
round1: take 5foot step away, Cast darkness on self
round2: Cast devils sight
all rounds thereafter: Blast Away!!!

and that is howcome warlocks are overpowered, thank you. :smallbiggrin:

That's an excellent strategy! You know, until they kill you. :smallmad:

Been there. Done that. Died horribly.

I adore Warlocks, myself. They're great, if only because I don't have to hunt through ten pages worth of spells every round to try to decide what I want to do to try to keep my flimsy little bum from ending up on the wrong side of a sword. Still, they're fun to play even if they're weak.

Though, if the DM doesn't like them, don't bug him. I would hate to have someone bother me to play a character out of the Book of the Nine Swords and then when I said no, try to get me rooked into a forum discussion where everyone is already agreeing with the other guy. We all have things that we just don't like because we haven't seen them in action and don't know how to plan for them. I'm sorry you don't get to play your warlock, but if you really want to play one with the DM you've got, show and don't tell. Run a game with someone else playing a warlock or have someone else run a game with you as the warlock and let him be a PC in it or something. Heck, if he wants, have him play the warlock. Be friendly about it and he might warm up to them. If not, oh well. :smalltongue:

[HellFencer]

Perhaps everyone is misunderstanding my intentions with this thread. I am not trying to force him to like the warlock. Nor am I bugging him about it. I was merely discussing with him about it, on a player to player standing. He disagreed, and I figured I would see if you could help me out.

Unfortunately, he still disagrees with the class, so I've given up trying to play one. Not that he had a game where I really wanted to play one, anyways. I am already playing one in a different game, and merely wished to express myself to him. Argument ensued.

Thus, I wish to thank everyone that has participated in this endeavour, and appreciate the constructive criticism I have received.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Hmm, that sounds crapy. I mean deeper darkness ought to be... you know: deeper.
I believe the design theory is to model deeper darkness as darknesse's version of daylight, which is just a larger, longer lasting version of light Though there are some bits of fluff that imply daylight is brighter, just not in any way that makes an in-game difference, except where some undead are concerned.