The Warlockopedia: A Comprehensive Warlock Handbook

[Kalkra]

The Old Blood feat from Bastard and Bloodlines is an alternative to Changelings. Also, you can take Bind Vestige for Naberius instead of dipping binder. Also, an Heir of Siberys with a Mark of Making can take Supernatural Transformation to circumvent the xp cost.

[Grim Reader]

In fact, it's actually a stronger argument than the nosomatic chirurgeon one, since the nosomatic chirurgeon argument relies on warlock not being considered a spellcasting class—an assertion that is contradicted several times in the text. Also, nosomatic chirurgeon strongly implies that the adept progression replaces the class's spellcasting ability entirely, as it instructs you to "adopt that class's spellcasting progression and spell list as the spellcasting ability of this class."

From the Complete Arcane Warlock section:

"Warlocks do not wield spells"

"He is much more limited in his abilities compared to the spell selection of spellcasters"

"However, like arcane spellcasters, a warlock wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure"

"Warlocks can qualify for some prestige classes usually intended for spellcasters"

"Levels of prestige classes that provide +1 level of spellcasting effectively stack with the warlocks level to determine his eldritch blast damage"

"A Warlock cannot qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements, as he never actually learns to cast spells"

They are pretty clear on Warlocks not being spellcasters, but in some ways functioning similarly.

EDIT: Actually, text trumphs table. Now that I think about it, I suppose you could make an argument that NC is a spellcasting class and has a spellcasting table equal to Adept 1 - 4. And that its not printed because not every NC gets it. However, it'd still by text peak at level 4. So you couldn't advance it beyond that.

Upon thinking this one through, probably not. If NC qualified as a spellcasting class it'd automatically disqualify the levels 2-4 from gaining Adept casting.

[Troacctid]

You can apply +1s to Warlock as if it was a spellcasting class, yes. Does not make it a spellcasting class. The Warlocks class description in Complete Arcane seems pretty clear on that.

That's not actually what it says, though. It doesn't say you can apply the +1 spellcasting to warlock. It says you gain a special benefit whenever you gain a level with +1 spellcasting.

Its unrelated to the NS though.

It's pretty much the same thing.

From the Complete Arcane Warlock section:

"Warlocks do not wield spells"

"He is much more limited in his abilities compared to the spell selection of spellcasters"

"However, like arcane spellcasters, a warlock wearing medium or heavy armor or using a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure"

"Warlocks can qualify for some prestige classes usually intended for spellcasters"

"Levels of prestige classes that provide +1 level of spellcasting effectively stack with the warlocks level to determine his eldritch blast damage"

"A Warlock cannot qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements, as he never actually learns to cast spells"

They are pretty clear on Warlocks not being spellcasters, but in some ways functioning similarly.

There are other spots where they are referred to as spellcasters.

[Grim Reader]

That's not actually what it says, though. It doesn't say you can apply the +1 spellcasting to warlock. It says you gain a special benefit whenever you gain a level with +1 spellcasting.

Which would lead to the line of thinking that you could also increase casting with it. Interesting, but a different issue.

It's pretty much the same thing.

No...no totally different. I think we are somehow talking past each other here. What you are saying is very different from what I am trying to convey. I am not sure how to put it in any different way though.

Take the first level of NC, +1 spellcasting goes to stack with Warlock for invocations and Eldrich Blast like those PrCs always do. Then you do the next part, which is check to see if you have any levels in any spellcasting classes, and if the answer is no, you gain a level of casting like the Adept.

Its not my discovery, it was pointed out on the WOTC boards almost immediately after the NC was published.

There are other spots where they are referred to as spellcasters.

Where? I am not doubting you, the books are hardly written to any degree of precision. I do think the multiple references to it as separate from spellcasters in the class description itself must be the final arbiter.

[Kalkra]

From your notes on Rags of Restraint, it seems like you're ruling that UMD can let you expend daily uses of class abilities you don't possess. If so, you should be able to use UMD for feeding spells into relics. Also, you might want to consider 1st level Cure Moderate Wounds and 4th level Summon Giants for UMD spells.

[Troacctid]

Which would lead to the line of thinking that you could also increase casting with it. Interesting, but a different issue.



No...no totally different. I think we are somehow talking past each other here. What you are saying is very different from what I am trying to convey. I am not sure how to put it in any different way though.

Take the first level of NC, +1 spellcasting goes to stack with Warlock for invocations and Eldrich Blast like those PrCs always do. Then you do the next part, which is check to see if you have any levels in any spellcasting classes, and if the answer is no, you gain a level of casting like the Adept.

Its not my discovery, it was pointed out on the WOTC boards almost immediately after the NC was published.

Let me put it another way. Say you're entering the class as a multiclass warlock/sorcerer.

If you had more than one spellcasting class before becoming a nosomatic chirurgeon, you must decide to which class to add each level for the purpose of determining spells per day, caster level, and spells known.

Do you get to choose which class to advance, and if so, can you choose warlock?

From your notes on Rags of Restraint, it seems like you're ruling that UMD can let you expend daily uses of class abilities you don't possess. If so, you should be able to use UMD for feeding spells into relics.

The UMD skill says as much. Gives the example of using UMD to fuel an item that requires you to spend a use of turn undead. Quite ironclad, as these things go. Unfortunately it doesn't work for relics, as it specifically only works when activating the item, and the spell slot you expend isn't part of the item's activation, it's just a...like, different thing, I guess.

Also, you might want to consider 1st level Cure Moderate Wounds and 4th level Summon Giants for UMD spells.

The spells are listed under the lowest level they're available to a base class. I'm staying away from the prestige class bargain bin; I think the resource is more useful this way.

[weckar]

Already mentioned.

Um, no. It actually isn't in any way I can make out.

[Troacctid]

Um, no. It actually isn't in any way I can make out.

4th paragraph mentions you get greaters a bit early.

[Jowgen]

Of course, the invocation does have a full-round casting time, so you’ll have to wait a full round for it to take effect,

How did you arrive at this conclusion? To my knowledge there is no "unless casting time is longer" clause attached to the "Invocation=Standard action" rule.

[Kalkra]

How did you arrive at this conclusion? To my knowledge there is no "unless casting time is longer" clause attached to the "Invocation=Standard action" rule.

Invocations are SLAs.

From the SRD
A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.

[Troacctid]

How did you arrive at this conclusion? To my knowledge there is no "unless casting time is longer" clause attached to the "Invocation=Standard action" rule.

It functions as summon swarm, which has a casting time of 1 round. Specific beats general—although in this case, the general rule actually backs it up:

A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description.

And because the warlock's invocation ability refers back to the general rules for SLAs, it doesn't constitute a specific override, only a reminder.

A warlock’s invocations are spell-like abilities; using an invocation is therefore a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

This is further corroborated by the Morpheme Savant feat, which speeds up the casting time of warlock's call.

Normal: The warlock's call invocationhas a casting time of 10 minutes and does not allow suggestions to be imbued.

[weckar]

Wow, that could really have been made clearer by whoever wrote the Warlock entry. The way it is written how long they take to cast really leaves no wiggle room, and it really becomes shady when it comes to invocations mimicking spells plus or minus some details - as they no longer properly (just) mimic the spell. A sending that can damage the caster is no longer inherently (just) a sending.

[Grim Reader]

Let me put it another way. Say you're entering the class as a multiclass warlock/sorcerer.

Do you get to choose which class to advance, and if so, can you choose warlock?

See, this is why I am saying that we are talking past each other.

I am not quite able to see this from your perspective. You seem to think that getting adept spellcasing is somehow related to the "+1 level of spellcasting" is that right?

Its not. You get Adept spellcasting because if you have no levels in spellcasting classes. That happens regardless of whether you enter as a single-class Fighter, multiclass Barbarian/Rogue, single-class Warlock or Monk/Kensai or whatever. No levels in spellcasting classes = Adept casting.

You can take advantage of the "+1 level of spellcasting" while still getting Adept casting if you have something to use it for that does not involve applying it to a spellcasting class.

And Warlock does.

[Troacctid]

See, this is why I am saying that we are talking past each other.

I am not quite able to see this from your perspective. You seem to think that getting adept spellcasing is somehow related to the "+1 level of spellcasting" is that right?

Its not. You get Adept spellcasting because if you have no levels in spellcasting classes. That happens regardless of whether you enter as a single-class Fighter, multiclass Barbarian/Rogue, single-class Warlock or Monk/Kensai or whatever. No levels in spellcasting classes = Adept casting.

You can take advantage of the "+1 level of spellcasting" while still getting Adept casting if you have something to use it for that does not involve applying it to a spellcasting class.

And Warlock does.

No, you see, if warlock isn't a spellcasting class, then that means a Warlock/Wizard doesn't get to choose which class to advance, because she only has one spellcasting class, and you only get the choice if you have more than one. She'd have to advance wizard. Am I wrong?

Edit: It would also make warlocks ineligible for classes like human paragon.

If a character had more than one spellcasting class before he became a human paragon, he must decide to which class he adds each level of human paragon. If a human paragon has no levels in a spellcasting class, this class feature has no effect.

No advancement at all. Sucks to be the warlock, I guess.

[Jowgen]

Wow, that could really have been made clearer by whoever wrote the Warlock entry. The way it is written how long they take to cast really leaves no wiggle room, and it really becomes shady when it comes to invocations mimicking spells plus or minus some details - as they no longer properly (just) mimic the spell. A sending that can damage the caster is no longer inherently (just) a sending.

I've looked into it and let me tell you, there is more to this story

[Grim Reader]

No, you see, if warlock isn't a spellcasting class, then that means a Warlock/Wizard doesn't get to choose which class to advance, because she only has one spellcasting class, and you only get the choice if you have more than one. She'd have to advance wizard. Am I wrong?

Complete Arcane is not clear on the subject, and as you pointed out does not actually specify that you need to assign the +1s, so I'd be up to the DM. But I do not see the relevance? You are arguing about a situation where you enter the class with a multiclass Warlock/spellcaster, where I am trying to explain that there is a benefit gained if you enter as a single-class Warlock. Its not even an analogous situation.

I am sure there is a very interesting discussion to be had about how that works when you enter as a Warlock/spellcaster, but that is not this discussion.

Edit: It would also make warlocks ineligible for classes like human paragon.

No advancement at all. Sucks to be the warlock, I guess.

No, you'd still be eligible if you qualified racially.

RAW you are correct, Warlock says you can benefit from the +1 level of spellcasting despite not being a spellcaster, but Human Paragon says if you are not a spellcaster you cannot benefit from that feature. And Human Paragon is the more specific case. I believe most DMs would rule that you cannot benefit in spell advancement from that, but RAW you are correct.

[Troacctid]

Complete Arcane is not clear on the subject, and as you pointed out does not actually specify that you need to assign the +1s, so I'd be up to the DM. But I do not see the relevance? You are arguing about a situation where you enter the class with a multiclass Warlock/spellcaster, where I am trying to explain that there is a benefit gained if you enter as a single-class Warlock. Its not even an analogous situation.

I am sure there is a very interesting discussion to be had about how that works when you enter as a Warlock/spellcaster, but that is not this discussion.

I'm talking about the consequences of applying your reading consistently. If it works in the context of that one ability but breaks half the prestige classes in the game when applied to everything else, then it's a dysfunctional reading. A consequence of saying that warlocks get the adept casting from nosomatic chirurgeon is that nearly all prestige classes with warlock-compatible spellcasting advancement are secretly eldritch theurges. Another consequence is that multiclass warlocks generally can't choose which class to advance—they have to advance the other one.

And another thing. How does your reading handle a Warlock/Dragonfire Adept/Nosomatic Chirurgeon? Neither of those is a spellcasting class, so you get the adept casting, but since you don't have two or more spellcasting classes, you can't just pick one of them to advance, because the text says that's only with two or more spellcasting classes. Do both of them gain the benefit? Do neither of them gain the benefit? Or, if you say you choose one of them to gain the benefit, then what specifically is your RAW basis for that ruling?

[Grim Reader]

Yeah, you are clearly talking about something totally different.

Taking it in reverse order:

And another thing. How does your reading handle a Warlock/Dragonfire Adept/Nosomatic Chirurgeon? Neither of those is a spellcasting class, so you get the adept casting, but since you don't have two or more spellcasting classes, you can't just pick one of them to advance, because the text says that's only with two or more spellcasting classes. Do both of them gain the benefit? Do neither of them gain the benefit? Or, if you say you choose one of them to gain the benefit, then what specifically is your RAW basis for that ruling?

First off, I don't take credit for the find. This was on the old WOTC boards as one of the basic Warlock options since right after Dragonmarked, I think it was, in 2006.

Second, your issue is the same whether you apply that reading or not. Because it stems not from Warlock not being a spellcasting class, but from the text in Compete Arcane not including anything about having to apply the +1 anywhere. It is simply written as taking levels in a PrC that provides "+1 spellcasting" raising EB and Invocations. It doesn't say anything about what happens if you have two classes that can use the bonus, or if you also have levels in a spellcasting class.

Text saying that you must pick one to advance is from the PrC you take. In fact you can target neither. Neither of them are spellcasting classes or have a spells per day table to advance. Without looking up Dragonfire Adept, I believe both have text saying they can benefit from the "+1 spellcasting" feature though. The most reasonable ruling I believe would be to rule that the "only one class can benefit from the +1 spellcasting" found in PrCs is to be treated as a general rule and also applies to gaining other bonuses from the "+1".

Most DMs in my experience simply assume that you treat the "+1 spellcasting" advancements like you would if the Warlock had text to the effect that if you have several classes that could benefit, you have to apply it to only one. "Benefit" not being limited to spellcasting. This is to avoid the issue you raise of all the PrC that provide a "+1 spellcasting" advancement turning into Theurges, and in some cases Triurges.

This is, however, not the same as ruling the Warlock a spellcasting class. And its certainly not an official ruling turning the Warlock into a spellcasting class. Its just patching an unclear rules area with a ruling from the precedence of other PrCs. (Note that the Eldrich Theurge has specific text prohibiting the "+1 spellcasting" from being applied to an invocation-using class.)

If you do not have levels in a spellcasting class when taking levels in Nosomatic Chirurgeon, you gain Adept spellcasting. Warlock is not a spellcasting class. What you do with the other section, the one on "+1 spellcasting" and that Warlocks get a bonus from those is besides the point. As is the fact that how this feature interacts with multi or prestige classed Warlocks is incompletely explained. in Complete Arcane.

I'm talking about the consequences of applying your reading consistently. If it works in the context of that one ability but breaks half the prestige classes in the game when applied to everything else, then it's a dysfunctional reading. A consequence of saying that warlocks get the adept casting from nosomatic chirurgeon is that nearly all prestige classes with warlock-compatible spellcasting advancement are secretly eldritch theurges. Another consequence is that multiclass warlocks generally can't choose which class to advance—they have to advance the other one.

No. The issue is that the text in Complete Arcane is unclear or incomplete on how the feature interacts with multiclass or PrC Warlocks and while writing this I have realized that you are trying to fix that by ruling the Warlock a spellcasting class and treating the Warlocks "invocations known" etc as a spellcasting table. Which does fix the issue, but it is an individual interpretation and overrules the text on how the Warlock in specific instances functions like a spellcasting class.

(Might also make any class that advances base class features and provide "+1 spellcasting " double advancement if there are any PrCs like that)

[Troacctid]

Text saying that you must pick one to advance is from the PrC you take. In fact you can target neither. Neither of them are spellcasting classes or have a spells per day table to advance. Without looking up Dragonfire Adept, I believe both have text saying they can benefit from the "+1 spellcasting" feature though. The most reasonable ruling I believe would be to rule that the "only one class can benefit from the +1 spellcasting" found in PrCs is to be treated as a general rule and also applies to gaining other bonuses from the "+1".

Most DMs in my experience simply assume that you treat the "+1 spellcasting" advancements like you would if the Warlock had text to the effect that if you have several classes that could benefit, you have to apply it to only one. "Benefit" not being limited to spellcasting. This is to avoid the issue you raise of all the PrC that provide a "+1 spellcasting" advancement turning into Theurges, and in some cases Triurges.

There you are. You got there eventually.

Its just patching an unclear rules area with a ruling from the precedence of other PrCs.

If your nosomatic chirurgeon ruling is clear, then how is this one not clear? They both use the same language—one tells you what to do if you have two or more spellcasting classes, the other tells you what to do if you have none. The only difference is that you don't like the result for the former. But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

[Doctor Awkward]

But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

Sigging this.

One of the most important things anyone has ever said about rules interpretation.

[Sleven]

I haven't had the chance to dig into any of the details yet, but this looks like excellent work. Contributions like this are what's best about this community.

Care to share a favorite warlock build? Or perhaps character concept that saw actual play? I'm an Eldritch Theurge fan myself, but I always enjoy hearing other stories and opinions on classes people are passionate about.

[Grim Reader]

There you are. You got there eventually.

It would have been easier if you'd just come straight out and said you don't like the class rules as they stand so you're going to proceed on you own version.

If your nosomatic chirurgeon ruling is clear, then how is this one not clear? They both use the same language—one tells you what to do if you have two or more spellcasting classes, the other tells you what to do if you have none. The only difference is that you don't like the result for the former. But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

No. The difference is that your ruling overwrites RAW, whereas the normal one extrapolates a clarification.

The thing about RAI is, you are just making educated guesses. You do not know for sure what RAI was unless you wrote the original text. (And I would not be surprised to find out that several members of the teams who did that are pretty uncertain about RAI, too) If you are going to decide to overwrite RAW to fit your interpretation of RAI -well that is certainly going to cascade down the line. The Warlock class description is fairly solid that the 3.5 Warlock is not a spellcaster. If you're going to decide to change something that major about the class instead of just common-sense rule about the application of +1 spellcasting level you're basically rewriting the class description to correct one instance of unlear writing. As a DM you can certainly decide to alter RAW as you see fit, but you can't assume that is going to be the universal base for everyone.

[Jowgen]

A minor point of addition to the feat section, regarding the Dark Speech feat, I think the Hive Mind function bears a little more elaborating on.

As is, the Hive Mind rules from BoVD are terribly broken in the sheer amount of Sorcerer casting they add. If the Leaflets of Triel fix suggested by the author are in play, then the Hivemind Swarm template becomes a viable addition to any swarm created by Sudden Swarm or, depending on how action cost is adjucated, the Summon Swarm invocation as well.

This can then net you 3-4 1st level sorcerer spells per swarm you summon and hivemind, which bring in a lot of versatility. Plus, the Vile Strike ability combos very well with the Murder of Crows blinding ability, if you can apply it.

[Troacctid]

It would have been easier if you'd just come straight out and said you don't like the class rules as they stand so you're going to proceed on you own version.

I mean I did say from the start that I wasn't going to include it. You can scroll back up, you'll see.

Like, are you advocating that I should use the "Every prestige class is eldritch theurge" rule? Because I'm 100% not gonna do that.

The thing about RAI is, you are just making educated guesses. You do not know for sure what RAI was unless you wrote the original text. (And I would not be surprised to find out that several members of the teams who did that are pretty uncertain about RAI, too) If you are going to decide to overwrite RAW to fit your interpretation of RAI -well that is certainly going to cascade down the line. The Warlock class description is fairly solid that the 3.5 Warlock is not a spellcaster. If you're going to decide to change something that major about the class instead of just common-sense rule about the application of +1 spellcasting level you're basically rewriting the class description to correct one instance of unlear writing. As a DM you can certainly decide to alter RAW as you see fit, but you can't assume that is going to be the universal base for everyone.

If we're in a situation like with dark discorporation trapping you in swarm form for 24 hours or enlightened spirit not advancing caster level, where it's clearly an error but there's no real other way to read it, then I'm happy enough complaining about the mistake and then talking about how good it would be if you assume a common-sense fix. But if there's one interpretation of the RAW that's dysfunctional and another one that works exactly like you'd expect, I'm generally just going to go with the second one. Baleful utterance doesn't instantly kill you when you cast it, invocations are a form of arcane magic, and when you advance warlock with a prestige class, you don't also gain the normal benefits of that prestige class's spellcasting ability on top of it.

A minor point of addition to the feat section, regarding the Dark Speech feat, I think the Hive Mind function bears a little more elaborating on.

As is, the Hive Mind rules from BoVD are terribly broken in the sheer amount of Sorcerer casting they add. If the Leaflets of Triel fix suggested by the author are in play, then the Hivemind Swarm template becomes a viable addition to any swarm created by Sudden Swarm or, depending on how action cost is adjucated, the Summon Swarm invocation as well.

This can then net you 3-4 1st level sorcerer spells per swarm you summon and hivemind, which bring in a lot of versatility. Plus, the Vile Strike ability combos very well with the Murder of Crows blinding ability, if you can apply it.

Oh man, I forgot to add the Minion and Control tags to it too.

[Aetis]

Troacctid, would you change the warlock class at all, and why?

[Troacctid]

Troacctid, would you change the warlock class at all, and why?

Yes. For starters, I think it really needs to have 4 skill points per level instead of 2, and there's no reason to retard the eldritch blast progression at higher levels. The alignment restriction needs to go. And I think the class could use some spackling to fill out the levels where you don't gain new invocations. I also think a lot of the invocations are poorly tuned, and there are some conspicuous gaps in what's available (no BFC until 11th level, for example). Also, the whole idea of warlocks being really good with magic items doesn't seem like it resonates with the class's high concept very well—don't get me wrong, it's a powerful ability, but it's kind of puzzling that they put it on this class. Furthermore, I'd like to see more support for warlocks who just want to deal damage—as is, there's hellfire warlock and that's about it.

[Endarire]

Thankee for making this guide, Jasmine/Tro!

[danielxcutter]

This is pretty comprehensive, yeah - still reading through it.

I think you might have forgotten to, or at least didn't, mention the +2 attack bonus from Eldritch Sculptor, and the upgrade to hideous blow. Which is kinda minor, especially most of them are going to be touch attacks in the first place... but yeah. Also that it explicitly stacks with Lord of All Essences, I guess.

Oh, that page has an update to epic Warlocks in general; they get blast damage progression every even-numbered level and can ignore the prereqs of a lot of those epic Warlock bonus feats. Just in case you forgot to mention them or something, I guess.

[Troacctid]

Thankee for making this guide, Jasmine/Tro!

Glad you liked it!

I think you might have forgotten to, or at least didn't, mention the +2 attack bonus from Eldritch Sculptor, and the upgrade to hideous blow.

Left it out cuz I didn't want to list it all and it's not the draw. Since it bugged you, it might bug others, so I'll make the afterthought more inclusive.

Oh, that page has an update to epic Warlocks in general; they get blast damage progression every even-numbered level and can ignore the prereqs of a lot of those epic Warlock bonus feats. Just in case you forgot to mention them or something, I guess.

The blast damage isn't an update, it's like that in the original version. Well, sort of—the original version had, like, a typo in it that had to be fixed by errata. So, the blast damage is like that in the errata'd version. The bonus feats are an update, but not a super meaningful one because it doesn't change the evaluation of any options in any especially notable way.

[Aetis]

Let me know if you ever iron out a homebrew version, Troacctid.

I'd be definitely interested in porting it in my games!