PDA

View Full Version : Warlock Blast DCs



Epiphanis
2007-04-08, 02:41 PM
Warlocks, as published, get blast Eldritch Blast DCs equal to 1/2 the Warlock level (or higher if a higher level invocation is added). The errata changes the base DC to 1 instead of 1/2 Warlock level. I think I prefer the original "misprint" to the correction. It seems needless to force a class that can't Heighten to apply an unnecessary shaped invocation to get a proper DC.

The only reason I can see for the "correction" is to force the Warlock to take blast shape invocations to keep the DC on the Eldritch Essences high. Yet it is irritating to force a character to use a cone shape to get a better DC when you have a single target and teamates potentially in the area of effect.

What would be the pros and cons of using the original, "uncorrected" version of the rules?

Rigeld2
2007-04-08, 02:47 PM
But... there is no save DC unless you apply a shape.

Zincorium
2007-04-08, 02:52 PM
Yeah. What Rigeld said. It's just a touch attack, that's one of the reasons they put the eldritch blast spell level down to 1 and then the blast shapes change it.

Epiphanis
2007-04-08, 02:53 PM
But... there is no save DC unless you apply a shape.

..or an essence. Or both. For instance, it would be very helpful to inflict the stacking -2 mods of shaken and sickened on an opponent, but both essences are low DCs. To make these debuffs stick at higher than the first couple levels under the corrected rules, you would have to apply a higher-level shape invocation even if its unnecessary.

Zincorium
2007-04-08, 03:16 PM
..or an essence. Or both. For instance, it would be very helpful to inflict the stacking -2 mods of shaken and sickened on an opponent, but both essences are low DCs. To make these debuffs stick at higher than the first couple levels under the corrected rules, you would have to apply a higher-level shape invocation even if its unnecessary.

Use a higher level blast shape, the eldritch blast takes the highest level that you apply to it, whether it's from the essence, the shape, or the base blast (which in and of itself doesn't have a DC).

Having the eldritch blast with a DC of 1/2 warlock level is going to raise the DC of the lower level effects through the freaking roof, it's the equivalent of heightening a 2nd level spell (frightful blast) to a 10th level spell, for free. This is why they changed it.

As it is, the system strongly encourages the use of the higher level essences and shapes when they become available, as it both keeps the DC up there with what a normal spellcaster has and improves the eldritch blast in other ways.

On a side note, you're a gimped warlock if you select both frightful and sickening blast. You can't add more than one to a particular eldritch blast, and you get so very few over the course of the game that you have to spend them wisely, picking two that debuff in similar ways is not a good idea.

Epiphanis
2007-04-08, 03:20 PM
If sickened and shaken didn't stack, I'd agree with you. Since they do, I don't.

Douglas
2007-04-08, 03:41 PM
If you want higher save DCs on your debuffing blasts without using higher level blast shapes, use higher level debuffing essences. Hellrime Blast or Beshadowed Blast are good for Lesser essences, the Greater invocation Noxious Blast is vastly superior to either of the two Least ones, and if you're high enough level to have Dark invocations, Utterdark Blast is the king of them all with a -2 penalty that stacks with itself and has some nice side effects. If you're high enough level to have those higher DC blast shapes you shouldn't be using those pathetic Least eldritch essences any more anyway.

Which is better, using a high level blast shape to increase the DC on stacking penalties up to -4, or using a high level eldritch essence to almost completely disable the target with the same DC as the blast shape would have?

Rigeld2
2007-04-08, 03:49 PM
..or an essence. Or both. For instance, it would be very helpful to inflict the stacking -2 mods of shaken and sickened on an opponent, but both essences are low DCs. To make these debuffs stick at higher than the first couple levels under the corrected rules, you would have to apply a higher-level shape invocation even if its unnecessary.
...
So, according to your train of thought, being able to stack a -4 to all, over two rounds, because your save DC is unbeatable (effectively) makes sense?

Heck, even with the lowered save DCs, you basically start with a 16 DC. How is that unable to stick at higher levels?

Epiphanis
2007-04-08, 04:13 PM
Which is better, using a high level blast shape to increase the DC on stacking penalties up to -4, or using a high level eldritch essence to almost completely disable the target with the same DC as the blast shape would have?

Often, the former.


So, according to your train of thought, being able to stack a -4 to all, over two rounds, because your save DC is unbeatable (effectively) makes sense?

Um... yes?

Well, the DC is not exactly unbeatable. And the "corrected" version of the rules lets you do that anyhow, provided you always buy the highest-level shape invocation available. The inconvenience comes from having to use an area effect where a one-on-one touch attack may be preferable (happens more often than you might think). Since the Warlock can use either a higher or lower DC attack an infinite number of times, why make him use a nuke when a bullet would suffice?

As I see it, the only balance reason for this is to force the Warlock to buy shape invocations among his very limited number of invocations. I'm not saying that its unfair, I'm just trying to see if there are other reasons for it I may have overlooked.

Douglas
2007-04-08, 04:16 PM
Often, the former.
Huh? How, exactly, is a -4 penalty better than a condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#nauseated) that limits the target to move actions only? Both effects have the same duration, the same kind of save, and the latter doesn't need a blast shape invocation to raise the DC.

Yuki Akuma
2007-04-08, 04:18 PM
If sickened and shaken didn't stack, I'd agree with you. Since they do, I don't.

So, you feel fine relegating yourself even more into the "one-trick pony" rut most warlocks find themselves in?

Good luck with that.

Rigeld2
2007-04-08, 04:27 PM
Look at 10th level.
DC 19 for a 2nd level essence (10+5(half warlock level)+4(stat)) original
DC 18 for a 2nd level essence + 4th level shape (10+4+4) errataed

11th level
DC 19 for a 2nd level essence
DC 19 for Eldritch Cone

20th level
DC 24 for a 2nd level essence
DC 22 for an 8th level shape

Why should a 2nd level essence ever compete with an 8th level shape?

Douglas
2007-04-08, 04:29 PM
Why should a 2nd level essence ever compete with an 8th level shape?
Especially when there are higher level essences that do the same kind of thing only, you know, better.

Epiphanis
2007-04-08, 05:12 PM
Hmm. Well, if anybody wants to think I'm retarded for seeing value in what I'm asking, feel free. My question reqards what other design reasons would argue against the class-level based DC than to force shape invocation purchases.


So, you feel fine relegating yourself even more into the "one-trick pony" rut most warlocks find themselves in?

Actually, what I'm asking would increase the number of viable options, not diminish them. It would allow the warlock to take one or two additional different effects (blast or utility invocations), instead of having to use them for one or two additional shapes to existing blast effects.


Huh? How, exactly, is a -4 penalty better than a condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#nauseated) that limits the target to move actions only? Both effects have the same duration, the same kind of save, and the latter doesn't need a blast shape invocation to raise the DC.

It often isn't. It sometimes is. Why would a straight-up spellcaster ever Heighten a lower-level spell when he could use that slot for a more-powerful higher level spell? Yet it often does make sense, especially when you have a limited selection of effects to choose from.

Douglas
2007-04-08, 05:39 PM
Would you mind giving an example of this "sometimes" case? I can't think of a single instance where sickening blast would be preferable to noxious blast that doesn't involve not knowing noxious blast in the first place.

Regarding Heighten, I can think of only two situations where a Heightened lower level spell is better than a high level spell in the same slot: the caster wants to capture the target alive (higher level spells are generally save-or-die rather than save-or-suck), and the caster has a limited selection of spells (sorcerer) and the higher level ones are all unsuited to the task at hand.

The first doesn't really apply to a warlock with eldritch blast - there's no way to negate the fact that you're dealing damage, and none of the essences are save-or-die anyway. The second might apply, but if you're getting blast shape invocations to raise your save DCs you could just spend that invocation known on the improved eldritch essence instead without touching any of the rest of your invocations known. If you're not getting either blast shape or eldritch essence invocations at the higher level, well, the lower DC is the price you pay for having those extra non-eldritch blast related abilities.

Yuki Akuma
2007-04-08, 06:03 PM
Actually, what I'm asking would increase the number of viable options, not diminish them. It would allow the warlock to take one or two additional different effects (blast or utility invocations), instead of having to use them for one or two additional shapes to existing blast effects.

By spending two of your very limited invocations known on blast essences that are both used for one trick?

Um. Not... not really...

Epiphanis
2007-04-08, 07:27 PM
Going a bit OT, but okay...


Would you mind giving an example of this "sometimes" case? I can't think of a single instance where sickening blast would be preferable to noxious blast that doesn't involve not knowing noxious blast in the first place.

Well, what if you want other greater invocations more than Noxious blast? Say at 11th level I have Sickening and Frightful Blast, causing Yuki and baby Jesus to cry for me. Now I would rather have Vitriolic Blast than Noxious, I would rather have the lower level Fort save debuff than the higher one, because that higher one will cost me a different invocation I would want more.

Or, a warlock is in a party with multiple other spellcasters, some or all of whom are built on less-than-perfect spell progression or save-or-die premises (like, say, a beguiler with a controller build, an eldritch knight, and a bard). The first round or two against the opponent everybody uses sensible conventional attacks, and the warlock in addition to doing eldritch damage manages to make the opponent (say, a Grell) sickened. In this status reduced condition the warlock may or may not also be able to make him shaken; if not, its not like he's going to lose any spell slots. If he succeeds, the Grell is at -4, and it now it isn't such a ridiculous proposition for the bard and beguiler to attempt charms or illusions and the eldritch knight to try a sub-optimal attack save spell. Under those circumstances, it could be more valuable to have the Grell at -4 to attacks and saves than to be nauseated.


By spending two of your very limited invocations known on blast essences that are both used for one trick?


Okay, not Yuki's cup of tea. Doesn't mean nobody would want to try it.

Warlock invocations are more like than fighter bonus feats than spells. Over a 20-level range Fighters get one fewer bonus feat than Warlocks get invocations. Yet its pretty standard for a fighter to use up multiple bonus feats for a "single trick." Aren't Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus a single trick? As I see it, same difference.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-04-08, 09:32 PM
Warlock invocations are more like than fighter bonus feats than spells. Over a 20-level range Fighters get one fewer bonus feat than Warlocks get invocations. Yet its pretty standard for a fighter to use up multiple bonus feats for a "single trick."
You really shouldn't discount the seven normal feats. That creates a depreciated value for the bonus feats, as the normal feats can help fill out the fighter's feat trees. As such, you are really comparing 18 feats vs. 12 invocations.


Aren't Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus a single trick? As I see it, same difference.
Neither Weapon Focus nor Greater Weapon Focus are particularly good choices for a feat compared to the many other options. After a certain point, an additional +1 just doesn't cut it compared to what other things you could be doing with that feat slot.

Epiphanis
2007-04-08, 09:50 PM
Not saying Fighter Bonus Feats are the same as Invocations, merely saying they are more alike than Spells and Invocations.

But, when you think about it, the Extra Invocation feat makes it a comparison of a maximum of 18 possible fighter feats to 17 possible warlock invocations. Fighters can forego 7 fighter feats for other types of feats, and Warlocks can forego 5 possible invocations for the same reason. The benefits of many of even the least invocations are far superior to most no-prerequisite feats, and Extra Invocation is far more enticing than Extra Spell or Extra Slot.

Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus is just one example. Any Feat/Greater Feat combo will do. And many people do take them.

Jasdoif
2007-04-09, 01:07 AM
Warlocks, as published, get blast Eldritch Blast DCs equal to 1/2 the Warlock level (or higher if a higher level invocation is added). The errata changes the base DC to 1 instead of 1/2 Warlock level. I think I prefer the original "misprint" to the correction. It seems needless to force a class that can't Heighten to apply an unnecessary shaped invocation to get a proper DC.

The only reason I can see for the "correction" is to force the Warlock to take blast shape invocations to keep the DC on the Eldritch Essences high. Yet it is irritating to force a character to use a cone shape to get a better DC when you have a single target and teamates potentially in the area of effect.

What would be the pros and cons of using the original, "uncorrected" version of the rules?The save DC increase was because as originally printed, eldritch blast's was treated as a spell with a spell level of 1/2 your warlock level (minimum 1, maximum 9). This increasing level causes trouble because the minimum caster level for, say, quicken spell-like ability is based on the effective spell level. You could never take quicken spell-like ability or empower spell-like ability: the spell level scales too quickly for the caster level to match, and you can't take the feat for 9th-level spells so even if you boosted your effective CL with epic levels you couldn't do it.

The scaling spell level also forces you to make increasingly higher Concentration checks, whether you'd actually get any benefit out of it. Eldritch blast is a spell-like ability and can be disrupted as such, and if the particular use doesn't have a saving throw you're effectively penalized on your Concentration DCs for taking more levels in the class.


Making eldritch blast always equivalent to a level-1 spell is much more sane overall.

Epiphanis
2007-04-09, 05:17 AM
Hadn't thought of that. Thanks, Jasdoif.