PDA

View Full Version : I'm a new DM, should I allow a warlock or soul-knife?



MalachorWraith
2007-12-02, 03:09 PM
I'm co-DMing a campaign with a friend (mostly because I know the math for 3.5 better than anyone else in our group and he wants to write a storyline) and we are still structuring the game. We spent our last session doing nothing but character creation and one person wanted to be a warlock and one wanted to be a multi-class fighter soulknife. I looked at both classes and I got this overwhelming feeling from both that they were broken but I wanted to get your opinions.

Warlock- Infinite ranged touch attacks (which means you'll hit Ogres rolling better than a 8 plus modifiers) with the ability to change the way you want to deal damage at will. It gets to change the shape of the blast and effects of the blast without penalty. I don't feel comfortable about this.

Soul Knife- I'll be honest because I don't have the paperwork in front of me but I remember reading it and thinking that it messed with game balance.

I'm fairly new at the full DM'ing but I'm very concerned about having a functional balanced game. I don't want to have to throw creatures at the team that are stronger than everyone else's CR just because I need to negate the effects of broken PC's. I don't mind adjusting how I set up battles because everyone adjusts a little bit based on whether there is a Wizard or Cleric in the group. I just don't want to make it look like all of the enemies are preparing against the nuance of one warlock and one soulknife in the team. All advice would be appreciated.

Crow
2007-12-02, 03:14 PM
Neither of these classes is overpowered (the soulknife is a little underpowered). Your game will be fine if you allow them.

Weezer
2007-12-02, 03:14 PM
you should allow both of those classes, soulknife isn't all that good because it doesn't have a full BAB and relies solely on weapons for damage. unlike the other melee oriented classes it doesnt have all that much that makes it better in combat, fighters get their feats, rangers their spells and animal companion, and barbarians get rage. Warlock is ok but is generally seen as one of the weaker classes but I dont know that much about it.

Zincorium
2007-12-02, 03:15 PM
I'm co-DMing a campaign with a friend (mostly because I know the math for 3.5 better than anyone else in our group and he wants to write a storyline) and we are still structuring the game. We spent our last session doing nothing but character creation and one person wanted to be a warlock and one wanted to be a multi-class fighter soulknife. I looked at both classes and I got this overwhelming feeling from both that they were broken but I wanted to get your opinions.

Warlock- Infinite ranged touch attacks (which means you'll hit Ogres rolling better than a 8 plus modifiers) with the ability to change the way you want to deal damage at will. It gets to change the shape of the blast and effects of the blast without penalty. I don't feel comfortable about this.

Soul Knife- I'll be honest because I don't have the paperwork in front of me but I remember reading it and thinking that it messed with game balance.

I'm fairly new at the full DM'ing but I'm very concerned about having a functional balanced game. I don't want to have to throw creatures at the team that are stronger than everyone else's CR just because I need to negate the effects of broken PC's. I don't mind adjusting how I set up battles because everyone adjusts a little bit based on whether there is a Wizard or Cleric in the group. I just don't want to make it look like all of the enemies are preparing against the nuance of one warlock and one soulknife in the team. All advice would be appreciated.

Honestly, those are two of the most underpowered classes in the game under 90% of all conditions. Here are the problems that might come up:

1. You don't give the players anywhere near the wealth by level guidelines in the DMG, and by the time the fighter gets a +2 sword the soulknife is working on +4 with some enhancements. Of course, the fighter would still most likely whup the soulknife's behind in a fight, because they're gimped in many other ways.

2. Warlocks + a larger-than-average number of fairly weak enemies. If you aren't running more than 6 encounters per day and mix the enemies up a bit rather than sending big, slow bruisers over and over again, the warlock will start to suck compared to a wizard in terms of doing stuff to the enemies.

3. You're in the habit of locking your PCs in dungeon cells without equipment.

Solo
2007-12-02, 03:22 PM
Warlocks are a low-powered arcane caster class, and soulknives are a rather weak melee class. It's not a problem usually.

Draz74
2007-12-02, 03:29 PM
On a side note, you can reference Soulknife rules online easily here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)

Citizen Joe
2007-12-02, 03:29 PM
As a new DM, I say don't allow anything outside of core. You'll have enough trouble dealing with all the problems new DMs go through, there is no need to add extra character classes to the list.

hamstard4ever
2007-12-02, 03:38 PM
At very low levels, the warlock is pretty nice (but by no means broken) and the soulknife is decent(ish). At medium-low levels, the warlock struggles to pull his own weight and the soulknife just starts to suck. When all the warlock can do is pull out weak spell effects, being able to use them an unlimited number of times per day just means he can be mediocre all day long. The warlock means much less bookkeeping and adjudication headaches than a wizard or sorcerer, so I'd say it would probably be a good thing for an inexperienced DM.

nerulean
2007-12-02, 04:03 PM
Neither of these classes are at all overpowered. The warlock is honestly one of the most fun classes I've played, because it's nice to occasionally just throw caution to the wind and blow stuff up. A warlock played cleverly can do decent battlefield control, and a non-magical barrier will never, ever get in his way if he takes Baleful Utterance so watch out for that if you're planning on putting a labyrinth or somesuch into the plot, but they don't break things.

If you're worried, look at average damage. Say you get up to level 20, the warlock's doing 9d6 points of damage, for an average of 30 or so points of damage once a round in most circumstances. A 10th level wizard can easily do half that again with a ranged touch attack using one of the orb spells, and while, yes, he's limited to the number of times he can do that in a day, unless you're planning on running a large number of encounters each day, it's not going to come up.

The soulknife is just a fighter with a rogue's base attack bonus and without the need for an expensive weapon.

Renegade Paladin
2007-12-02, 04:06 PM
The only situation I've ever seen a warlock be especially good in was World's Largest Dungeon; a drow warlock was the longest-lasting character. And that's only because the dungeon is gigantic, throws encounters 2 to 3 above the party EL at you all the time and one right after the other, and provides no safe spots to rest in most of the sections. As you can probably imagine, expendable resources ran very low, very fast, which is why the warlock was handy.

KIDS
2007-12-02, 04:07 PM
Both warlock and soulknife are moderately underpowered but very fun; don't be fooled by the "unlimited" ability, unless you intend to run Helm's Deep every session I can guarantee that they will never be in a situation where not being worried about running out will be a good choice for them. That said, I strongly advise to allow these two, they have very little work associated with them and built in brakes against breaking anything.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-02, 04:11 PM
The Warlock is "a little" underpowered, yes. The Soulknife, on the other hand, is one of the worst classes in the whole game; I'd say it might even be worse than the Monk.

Allow the Warlock but not the Soulknife--for your player's own good.

Aquillion
2007-12-02, 04:13 PM
The warlock is considered somewhat underpowered, but can at least still contribute most of the time (there's almost no situation where flying + invisibility + long-ranged attacks can't help at least a bit). It's fine for a new DM, but make sure the player taking it understands that it'll mostly be less powerful than a normal wizard, so they don't start complaining when the party's actual arcane caster (if they have one) constantly outshines them. Still, particularly in a game without optimization (likely with new players), the warlock can be a lot of fun and is easy to use.

The soulknife is complete rubbish, usually lumped in just a notch above the CWar samurai in terms of pure awfulness. Even players who don't usually care about class power tend to avoid it unless their character concept is a really, really weak fighter. They get terrible BAB and no bonus feats, and in exchange they get... a weapon weaker than what they could buy at that level, which is unable to pierce most forms of DR. It isn't even a matter of optimization; a regular soulknife is going to be noticably weaker at most levels than a regular unoptimized fighter or barbarian. Let the player take it if they really want to, but make sure they know it's a weak class overall.

Baron Corm
2007-12-02, 04:13 PM
Note that a warlock can do, at level 20, 9d6 damage per round (plus 2d6 the next round with vitrolic blast if he decides to use it). A level 3 spell, fireball, does 10d6 at level 10, or sooner if you have caster level bonuses. Wizards get third level spells at level 5.

Hellfire warlock is a prestige class which increases your damage by 2d6 per level, but there's only three levels and you take Constitution damage when you cast, which makes it no longer infinitely usable unless you buy a lot of wands of lesser restoration. A wizard will still do much, much more with disintegrate (40d6 at level 20). A fighter-type will do more as well, and he can deal damage infinitely just like the warlock, except he has less mobility. This can be remedied to a certain extent with items.

What a warlock really has is mobility and infinitely usability. He's pretty weak as far as killing things go, especially at high levels, but still fun to play. My opinion.

Edit: Wow seems like a lot of people wanted to give their opinions on this :smallbiggrin:. Ninja'd.

Aquillion
2007-12-02, 04:18 PM
Also, for the Soulknife player... if they just care about the flavor, you could suggest that they play a Psychic Warrior with the Call Weaponry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/callWeaponry.htm) power.

nooblade
2007-12-02, 04:43 PM
Warlocks aren't about the Eldritch Blast at higher levels--their magic item creation abilities come in full swing by then. It is fairly advanced, time is definitely a limiting factor, but I think a Warlock could use preparation time to get pretty close to, if not further than (in some cases), a Wizard's ability by crafting scrolls, wands, staves, or other consumables for any spell in the game (right?). Some of it wouldn't make sense according to flavor, sure, but everything else is fair game. A Wand of Fireball by level 10 would be easy and cheap, but not really necessary.

I prefer Warlocks to Wizards because they have that item creation ability. The invocations are much more reliable then spell slots and serve the same function once the laboratory is up and going. Warlocks don't need dispel magic wands or magic missile, plus a few other things can be eliminated, so your focus is on buffing up the party with the items, assuming other spellcasters aren't around. I'm pretty sure metamagic works with items too, if you even really need one of those. You'd miss out on quicken spell, and you'd be less powerful than a Wizard because of it, but that's more balanced anyways.

You could even circumvent a Cleric that way, with enough finesse. Farm for experience and gold with unlimited use abilities, make useful stuff with it, rinse and repeat. I don't think it's overpowered, you can still put limits on the amount of time they spend going through the cycle as DM, but it's basically identical to the spell memorization mechanic with the exception of costing more resources (which would be used anyways at higher levels).

But, yes, the soulknife won't be having too much fun I bet. Psion stuff is neat but not that class.

Premier
2007-12-02, 04:54 PM
As a new DM, I say don't allow anything outside of core. You'll have enough trouble dealing with all the problems new DMs go through, there is no need to add extra character classes to the list.

Quoted for truth.

Seriously, everyone in this thread might be meaning well, but A, they're much more experienced as players and theoretical character-builders than you as a DM, B, it sounds like you're not particularly familiar with these classes (at least the soulblade), and you should never, ever let into your game something you don't feel familiar enough with, and C, you're DM-ing that game, not them. If you don't feel comfortable with those classes, and/or if you feel your hands will be full even without them, you just say so to your players, and that's where the buck stops.
You are the DM, and thus the first and last authority in your campaign. Not your players, not the guys who write and publish D&D splatbooks, not the members of the GitP forum. You.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-02, 04:59 PM
You are the DM, and thus the first and last authority in your campaign. Not your players, not the guys who write and publish D&D splatbooks, not the members of the GitP forum. You.

He asked for our advice. If he really doesn't want the Warlock, he doesn't need to bother with the Warlock, but he posted on these forums stating that he was considering adding the Warlock but was concerned about balance.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-12-02, 05:04 PM
The warlock is fine, even though it can do damage at will, that doesn't do much until epic where you can double the amount of blasts a round. (Watch those dice skyrocket!)

MalachorWraith
2007-12-02, 06:11 PM
On a side note, you can reference Soulknife rules online easily here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)

That helps a lot.

I think I'm going to allow it if it really trades off that much.

MaxMahem
2007-12-02, 06:31 PM
That helps a lot.

I think I'm going to allow it if it really trades off that much.

The soul knife looks okay at first glance. Two good saves, d10 HD, decentish skills, okay abilities. But a closer examination reveals two things.

#1. 2/3 BAB progression. This means he will be passed up in martial ability by all the primary melee classes (Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian). Especially since he doesn't get as many bonus feats that the fighter and ranger do.

#2. Most of his abilities relate to his weapon, which really isn't all that great. Basically he gets a free psionic weapon basically equivalent to what he could buy at that level. He can resummon it at will which is nice, and he can throw it (though not multiple times a round until high level). This is nice, but really not all that great compared to the extra stuff fighters/rangers/barbarians get.

He does get some decent abilities. Particularly Psychic strike and sword to soul and some okay feats/abilities (weapon focus, greater weapon focus, and the whirlwind like one). But they are hardly that great when compared to what he gives up (particularly the BAB).

IMO if you slap full BAB progression on the Soul Knife you get a MUCH better class. Probably somewhere around the ranger in terms of power level, and probably better than the fighter (depending upon feats). However despite a good HD and two good saves it still not THAT powerful due to its lack of heavy armor proficiency. A good barbarian will eat it up. I would also consider allowing a feat/item that allowed the Soul Knife to use something other than a short sword as his primary weapon.

Renx
2007-12-02, 06:38 PM
I'd say 'sure'. No spells/day limit means less character sheet browsing which is always good.

Ninja Chocobo
2007-12-02, 07:10 PM
The warlock is fine, even though it can do damage at will, that doesn't do much until epic where you can double the amount of blasts a round. (Watch those dice skyrocket!)

That means nothing when the party Wizard is ending universes for fun.

puppyavenger
2007-12-02, 07:25 PM
That means nothing when the party Wizard is ending universes for fun.

or creating them, or destroying them, or populating them..

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-02, 07:47 PM
Might as well suggest a lil' something. The Warlock should be fine, but if your player wants to play a soulknife, tell him to play a psychic warrior with this variant:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65001


It'll be more fun for him, and less of a headache for you when you have to prep a monster that is tailormade for him because he'll suck badly if you don't.

Aquillion
2007-12-02, 08:50 PM
Quoted for truth.

Seriously, everyone in this thread might be meaning well, but A, they're much more experienced as players and theoretical character-builders than you as a DM, B, it sounds like you're not particularly familiar with these classes (at least the soulblade), and you should never, ever let into your game something you don't feel familiar enough with, and C, you're DM-ing that game, not them. If you don't feel comfortable with those classes, and/or if you feel your hands will be full even without them, you just say so to your players, and that's where the buck stops.
You are the DM, and thus the first and last authority in your campaign. Not your players, not the guys who write and publish D&D splatbooks, not the members of the GitP forum. You.This isn't really fair. When you get down to it, Warlocks are not terribly complicated; they have a few (at most) paragraph-length abilities, and you really only need to read the twelve invocations your PC takes. You don't have to worry about durations, or complicated rules for their powers, or them suddenly pulling out a seldom-used invocation you'd forgotten about, or anything like that; they're probably the most straightforward magic class in the game. If I was a new DM, just in terms of simplicity, I would rather my players take a Warlock over an actual caster any day of the week.

PnP Fan
2007-12-02, 08:59 PM
Haven't read the entire thread, but the prevailing wisdom on this message board is that those two classes are on the low end of the power scale.

I think, the more important issues are these:
1. Do you feel comfortable with what those classes can do?
2. If you are not particularly familiar with those rules sets, can you trust your players to police themselves? (for both intentional cheating, and honest mistakes).

I'm not especially familiar with those two classes (read them, but never played either), but my players are generally pretty good at policing themselves. Mistakes are made, but it's never intentional.

Dausuul
2007-12-02, 09:28 PM
This isn't really fair. When you get down to it, Warlocks are not terribly complicated; they have a few (at most) paragraph-length abilities, and you really only need to read the twelve invocations your PC takes. You don't have to worry about durations, or complicated rules for their powers, or them suddenly pulling out a seldom-used invocation you'd forgotten about, or anything like that; they're probably the most straightforward magic class in the game. If I was a new DM, just in terms of simplicity, I would rather my players take a Warlock over an actual caster any day of the week.

Hell, as an experienced DM, I'd still rather deal with a warlock than a full caster. Full casters have so many ways to break the plot that it's not even funny, especially once you get to around level 9-10. There's always that one single spell you forgot the wizard had. When I run a D&D game, I have a list of banned spells as long as your arm.

While warlocks have a few DM-irking tricks, they're always the same tricks for any given warlock, so it's much easier to plan for them.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-02, 09:32 PM
Seconded on that, even HALF casters can kill plots horribly. Example: I intend to set up a shipwreck, but a psywar expands to huge size, uses the float power, grabs his party, and sends half a campaign down the drain.

Nattypat
2007-12-02, 09:34 PM
Just agreeing with most of the others. Yes, you should allow them.

Nattypat
2007-12-02, 09:38 PM
Hell, as an experienced DM, I'd still rather deal with a warlock than a full caster. Full casters have so many ways to break the plot that it's not even funny, especially once you get to around level 9-10. There's always that one single spell you forgot the wizard had. When I run a D&D game, I have a list of banned spells as long as your arm.

While warlocks have a few DM-irking tricks, they're always the same tricks for any given warlock, so it's much easier to plan for them.

Well... every good DM needs to learn how to roll with the punches, and if you have good, nice players, they should hold off on you. But these kinds of problems could probably be good practice for you, as every DM has to deal with them. Eventually, it should be to the point where it won't matter anymore and you'll be able to allow the players to direct the plot.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-12-02, 09:40 PM
Seconded on that, even HALF casters can kill plots horribly. Example: I intend to set up a shipwreck, but a psywar expands to huge size, uses the float power, grabs his party, and sends half a campaign down the drain.

You mean they can kill plots where the DM doesn't take the two minutes needed to look at the character sheets of their players.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-02, 09:51 PM
So, I have to kill Expansion, perhaps THE most useful power a psywar gets, and I have to ban FLOAT, which he got 8 levels and two campaigns earlier?

Dausuul
2007-12-02, 10:09 PM
You mean they can kill plots where the DM doesn't take the two minutes needed to look at the character sheets of their players.

The player always knows his/her character sheet better than the DM, unless the player is a total newbie. Sure, you might see those powers on the character's sheet, but making the connection, "These particular powers will allow the character to circumvent this entire scenario," is not always so simple. With warlocks, it's manageable because there's only a small number of powers to worry about. With casters, though, there are so many spells that you can very easily miss that one key combo--but you can bet the player will come up with it.

Moreover, this assumes the DM has ready access to the character sheet in question when planning an adventure, which is not a safe assumption. Lots of players like to hang onto their own sheets when not at the gaming table.


Well... every good DM needs to learn how to roll with the punches, and if you have good, nice players, they should hold off on you. But these kinds of problems could probably be good practice for you, as every DM has to deal with them. Eventually, it should be to the point where it won't matter anymore and you'll be able to allow the players to direct the plot.

Oh, I'm used to rolling with punches, believe me. Players always do unexpected things. But regardless of who's "directing" the plot, the DM is the one who has to come up with challenges and obstacles for the PCs to overcome on the way to wherever they've decided to go. High-level casters make it much, much harder to devise suitable challenges that cannot be bypassed with a spell or two.

I've played through a few of WotC's higher-level canned adventures recently, and I'm increasingly amused by the fact that the final segment of each always seems to take place in a no-teleport zone. Apparently WotC is discovering what I've known for a while now, which is that the ability to teleport (especially when backed up by divination magic) is the single worst plot-wrecker in the game. I really, really hope it gets axed in 4E.

Cthulhu
2007-12-02, 10:20 PM
I wouldn't let anyone play the soul knife because it sucks so much that its very badness is disruptive to the game. Seriously, if there is a druid in the same game the soul knife player will feel bad. Be prepared to give targeted free stuff to the soul knife in this case.

A fighter soulknife is likely to be worse, as the soul knifes only real power is 'has a weapon that isn't quite level appropriate.' when you multiclass you actually remove this feature making a soul knife a total waste of space.

The warlock is merely second rate.

mabriss lethe
2007-12-02, 11:17 PM
I don't think I've ever heard of either class breaking a game in the slightest.

soulknives, while an interesting idea, only play even mediocre when you blow every possible feat on a psionics. Even then, those feats aren't very power heavy in the extreme.

Warlocks are possibly my favorite class in 3.5. (especially in a low level campaign) They have a good flavor, great rp potential, virtually no book keeping. Each and every invocation learned is going to be an agonizing decision. Each and every dirty trick they learn requires that they give up a host of others...unless you let them take levels in the Chameleon PrC.(races of destiny) Two levels of Chameleon turns a warlock into an invocation machine (they have a bonus feat that they can change each day. This means they have one extra invocation they can use from one category lower than their highest and can swap it out for another one ,or another feat alltogether each day.) Being able to mimic abilities of other classes will also give them a desperately needed leg up on other caster classes. If it weren't for the fact that I destest the flavor of the PrC mightily...

Low level warlocks also benefit quite a bit (probably more than any other class) from the spell like ability feats presented in complete arcane (ex: Necropolis born). They'll eventually be wasted space, but will still find utility long after any other class would have abandoned them.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-02, 11:31 PM
You can expect the Warlock to be hard to kill (Invisibility and Flight invocations, Eldritch Spear letting him attack from long range) but not do a lot of damage. At higher levels.


A Fighter/Soulknife will... well, his weapon will be crappy if he uses his Mind Blade. He'll be better at sneaking and stuff than a normal fighter (suggest the Thug (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug) variant, maybe add a few more skills to the list, if he insists on playing the Fighter/Soulknife), but that won't matter much. He'll be terrible in stand-up combat, with an unremarkable AC and very lackluster damage.

Fuzzy_Juan
2007-12-03, 12:31 AM
Yeah, like they said...niether class will ever just break a game right open. There are some circumstances of course when those classes will shine above others...but not too often, those times are rare.

Warlocks are only really fearsome when facing repeated battles without a chance to rest and recover spells...or when characters are stripped and caged...a wizard, sorcerer, or cleric without thier gear or not allowed to rest is screwed...a warlock gets annoyed and then kills people.

Kinda the same with the mindblade, they are never without their weapon...null magic, null psionics...who cares...the burst damage potential of them is high if they can do hit and run attacks against creatures with minds...otherwise, they are just weak fighters...and poor rogues.

Aquillion
2007-12-03, 04:27 AM
I wouldn't let anyone play the soul knife because it sucks so much that its very badness is disruptive to the game. Seriously, if there is a druid in the same game the soul knife player will feel bad. Be prepared to give targeted free stuff to the soul knife in this case.What targeted free stuff can you give a soulknife? They've already wasted their entire character progression on a weapon that sucks. Giving them a weapon that doesn't suck, for free, is just rubbing salt in their wounds.

Telok
2007-12-03, 05:09 AM
The best fix I've ever seen for soulknives is a homebrewed feat. It was just a version of Practiced Manifester/Spellcaster for the mind blade. Then of course you took four levels of full BaB class.

Craig1f
2007-12-03, 10:52 AM
Make sure you look over the warlock's invocation list before approving it. Find out if he's using Dragon Magic.

A warlock's damage can sky-rocket if he takes Eldritch Glaive. This allows him to make a full-attack with a melee reach version of Eldritch Blast. Basically, they make a glaive out of light and attack with it.

A hasted warlock at level 8 can make 3 attacks. Assuming they have a chausable of fell power (magic item compendium, increases damage of eldritch blast by 1d6 or 2d6), they can be doing around 7d6 or 8d6 damage once they've gotten a 2nd attack. They'll make three touch attacks. Because they're touch attacks, the first two will probably hit easily, and the third will most likely hit. That's 21d6 damage at level 8.

Plus, if you add an eldritch essence, the target has to make 3 saves.

So at level 8, a warlock can be doing around 70 damage as a full-attack.

However, a warlock that gets himself in the position to be making full-round melee attacks is going to find his hitpoints depleted very quickly.

Anyway, just keep it in mind. Warlocks, and Dragonfire Adepts (which are a very cool Dragon-themed warlock class from Dragon Magic) are pretty simple. Once you learn their tricks, you should be ok DMing them.

Amiria
2007-12-03, 11:15 AM
@^

Eldritch Glaive doesn't benefit from Haste. EG is a full-round action, not a full attack action. Those are not the same. Haste only allows an extra attack with a full attack action.

[hr]

As for the original question ... I twenty what most others here said: Warlock = no problem, a bit underpowered but an easy and fun class; Soulknife = horrible underpowered.

Duke of URL
2007-12-03, 11:23 AM
However, a warlock that gets himself in the position to be making full-round melee attacks is going to find his hitpoints depleted very quickly.

This type of build is DEX, DEX, DEX, with just a little CHA for save DCs. Chausable of Fell Power is a must (especially if you can boost your DEX to the point where even light armor limits your maximum DEX), and then Hellfire Warlock as soon as you qualify (level 10).

At level 12, you're now doing 6d6 + 2d6 + 6d6 plus any additional effects up to twice a round for the cost of 1 point of CON. As a finessed (take Weapon Finesse with the level 3 feat) melee touch attack, it hits almost every time (and the natural 1's are compensated for, on average, by critical on 20's). Take Combat Reflexes (level 1) to potentially get a huge number of AoOs with your reach weapon depending on enemy actions. Hellfire Warlock also lets you put up a defensive blast if attacked in melee (another 14d6, auto hit, reflex 1/2) at the cost of another point of CON.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-03, 11:33 AM
And to top it off, get a ring of unlimited lesser restoration, and a CLW ring to recover the CON-based HP. Bang, instant killer.

Duke of URL
2007-12-03, 11:39 AM
And to top it off, get a ring of unlimited lesser restoration, and a CLW ring to recover the CON-based HP. Bang, instant killer.

Yeah, it's not like this particular build needs much else in equipment. Even a wand of lesser restoration or two would be fine if you're not pumping up the hellfire on every attack. Other than that, you'd be looking for DEX- and CHA-boosting items (and CHA skill-boosting items), bracers of armor, items that provide boosts to saves, natural armor, and deflection AC. Tack on a variety of utility wands and/or scrolls and a wand with an AoE spell (like fireball) that you can use the Hellfire Warlock's ability to empower or energy substitute so that you have an effective ranged AoE attack.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-03, 11:49 AM
And that's pretty much it, since when you have that, you can start poring your WBL into utility stuff, like standards or a cornucopia of the needy.

Dausuul
2007-12-03, 01:21 PM
And to top it off, get a ring of unlimited lesser restoration, and a CLW ring to recover the CON-based HP. Bang, instant killer.

Alternatively, drop two feats on Martial Study to pick up Iron Heart Surge once per encounter.

Also, you don't need the cure magic; when you recover lost Con, you get the lost hit points with it. It's the same way barbarian hit points go up when the barb rages.

Aquillion
2007-12-03, 01:24 PM
Make sure you look over the warlock's invocation list before approving it. Find out if he's using Dragon Magic.

A warlock's damage can sky-rocket if he takes Eldritch Glaive. This allows him to make a full-attack with a melee reach version of Eldritch Blast. Basically, they make a glaive out of light and attack with it.

A hasted warlock at level 8 can make 3 attacks. Assuming they have a chausable of fell power (magic item compendium, increases damage of eldritch blast by 1d6 or 2d6), they can be doing around 7d6 or 8d6 damage once they've gotten a 2nd attack. They'll make three touch attacks. Because they're touch attacks, the first two will probably hit easily, and the third will most likely hit. That's 21d6 damage at level 8.

Plus, if you add an eldritch essence, the target has to make 3 saves.

So at level 8, a warlock can be doing around 70 damage as a full-attack.

However, a warlock that gets himself in the position to be making full-round melee attacks is going to find his hitpoints depleted very quickly.

Anyway, just keep it in mind. Warlocks, and Dragonfire Adepts (which are a very cool Dragon-themed warlock class from Dragon Magic) are pretty simple. Once you learn their tricks, you should be ok DMing them.That lets them at least do damage, but I wouldn't say it makes them very good. Aside from haste not working as you described it, you can't use Power Attack or related feats with Eldritch Glaive, which means they can't match a good barbarian or fighter. And the Warlock doesn't really have very good defenses at close range... their good defenses are invisibility and flight, both of which they give up to get close enough to use this attack. Without them, they're left depending on their weak DR, which isn't really going to save them when the monster full attacks back.

Duke of URL
2007-12-03, 01:30 PM
That lets them at least do damage, but I wouldn't say it makes them very good. Aside from haste not working as you described it, you can't use Power Attack or related feats with Eldritch Glaive, which means they can't match a good barbarian or fighter.

The big difference is actually being able to hit the target. Eldritch Glaive works against touch AC, which in almost all cases is significantly lower than regular AC. Also, don't underestimate the value of Eldritch essences added to the attack -- with two saves to roll, odds are good that the target will suffer additional effects fairly often.

Craig1f
2007-12-03, 01:49 PM
That lets them at least do damage, but I wouldn't say it makes them very good. Aside from haste not working as you described it, you can't use Power Attack or related feats with Eldritch Glaive, which means they can't match a good barbarian or fighter. And the Warlock doesn't really have very good defenses at close range... their good defenses are invisibility and flight, both of which they give up to get close enough to use this attack. Without them, they're left depending on their weak DR, which isn't really going to save them when the monster full attacks back.

I agree you can't Power Attack (I've read many threads where they insist that you can, which I think is ridiculous). But I'm pretty sure haste still works.

It says you get as many attacks as a full-round attack provides. If you're hasted, that's an extra attack. I'm not sure I understand why this won't work.

As for damage, ok, let's just say you get two attacks at 8d6. A Barbarian with 26 STR in rage and a +2 weapon is doing 1d12+14, against a full AC. 1d12 + 14 is average 20.5. That's about the same as 6d6, which is 21 average. That's about 6d6 + 6d6 damage. The 2nd hit will have a much harder time landing though.

A Warlock, however, is doing 8d6 + 8d6 touch attacks. Those will have a much easier time of landing. 8d6 averages 28 damage.

For a non-melee class, that's a very respectable amount of damage. Plus, it overcomes damage reduction, has reach, looks cool, and you can attack eldritch essences to it to blind or otherwise afflict the opponent.

A Barbarian is still a better combatant, of course, but the warlock is holding his own, and he can still turn invisible and fly if the fight starts to go south.