what about warlocks?

[gnomas]

So there is obviously a lot of threads on these forums about which classes are overpowered/underpowered, and now I'm adding another one!

My question is, are warlocks (complete arcane) underpowered? If so, why?
By contrast, are they overpowered? Why?

And as a last thought...would multiclassing from warlock to rogue or a similar class be a good or bad idea?

Thanks in advance!

[FlyMolo]

I quite like warlocks. I like the flavor, and they're pretty balanced.

Excellent to combine with another class, like Spellthief. (IMHO, anyway.)

[MeklorIlavator]

Warlocks are generally though of to be mid/lower-tier in strength(higher with some of the newer books, such as Dragon Magic and Comp Mage), unless using some rules exploit or similar non-class specific power booster. By properly applying their abilities, a Warlock can be more powerful, usually by using Use Magical device to increase their versatility. Note that most Warlock builds that do significant damage are based partly off of a PrC found in the Fiendish Codex, usually in conjuncture with a way to regain Con Damage.

[Ninjalitude]

What about the Darkness/Devils sight/Eldritch spam tactic?

[Xefas]

Well, Warlocks aren't as powerful as a full-caster, simply for the reasons that they can't either 1) Become an unstoppable juggernaut of death or 2) slaughter an entire encounter with one well-placed spell. However, they're still a lot better than fighters/monks. The only cheese-factor they have is UMD, but that can be said of any rogue, bard, etc.

That said, they have a much shorter learning curve. While it does take a tiny bit of experience to pick Glitterdust out of the hodgepodge of text, Warlocks are pure blasty with a couple of cool tricks that any random guy off the street with no knowledge of the mechanics could have fun with ("On your turn, pick a guy and roll these monopoly dice. Or pick a guy and break his weapon. Also you can run on the walls").

Since my current party's roster includes a cleric, druid, wizard, swordsage, and a similarly powered homebrewed class, I beefed up NPC Warlocks by giving them Binding progression as the Binder class. Don't know if that'd be balanced in PC hands, but it has worked so far for NPCs accompanying the party for various amounts of time.

If your party isn't decked out in full-casters like mine is, then they're probably perfectly okay.

[The_Snark]

Darkness is just a 20% miss chance, and you can still see through it (it's shadowy illumination, not pitch blackness). Darkness/Devil's Sight would be really good if Darkness were actually total darkness; unfortunately, it's not. (And even if it were, the warlock would be hurting his party just as much with the darkness as his enemies.)

I've always felt warlocks were nicely balanced. They're not as powerful as most standard spellcasters, but with well-chosen invocations they can manage to hold their own at pretty much any level. They compare well to rogues and the like, using invocations rather than skills. They have a few powerful options (Eldritch Glaive, the Hellfire Warlock, crafting) and quite a lot of passable ones (most invocations). Plus some abysmal ones, of course, but the same is true of every class.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Rogue/Warlock is a very viable combo. Amazing UMD synergy, and you can sneak attack with Eldrich Blast. Probably best to dip 4 levels into Warlock to be able to take 10 on UMD checks then slide into Rogue. See the Unseen and Walk Unseen make for a powerful combo.

Warlock isn't bad. It's not a nova class, but it's an infinite number of encounters class. In fact, I've made some homebrewed variant classes designed to replace the primary spellcasters (Arcanist for wiz/sorc, Priest for Cleric, I even redid the Bard, and I'm working on the Druid's counterpart now) because I like the system so much better than standard casting.

[Vortling]

Warlocks are fun to play but they're a bit short on support. They only have one or two prestige classes and their invocation list isn't expanded in any books I remember. You could probably combine them nicely with a rogue to good effect as long as you have enough warlock to pick up the invisibility invocation.

[AslanCross]

Warlocks definitely can't pump out as much damage as Wizards can in a single round, and neither do they have as many options. They do have a few very unique options, however. They have some self-buffs that last a whole day. (Fell flight and Dark One's Own Luck, to name a couple) Very few Wizard spells have that duration and although they do have Metamagic, Warlocks don't even need it. Also, Warlocks can recast their invocations at will if dispelled. Also, at-will Invisibility FTW.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that Warlocks are very good UMD characters. Wands and scrolls can allow them to emulate Wizard and Cleric capabilities. At higher levels, they can even craft their own wands and scrolls without knowing the spells needed.

Dragon Magic gave the Warlock a very good melee option (Eldritch Glaive), while FC2 gave us the Hellfire Warlock prestige class, which dramatically increases the Eldritch Blast's damage output.

The Warlock really looks underwhelming at first glance, but looking weak when compared to the Wizard really isn't a good measure of a class's power.

[Chronos]

Rogue/Warlock is a very viable combo. Amazing UMD synergy, and you can sneak attack with Eldrich Blast.

It's also good for someone who doesn't like managing limited resources, since both invocations and skills can be used as often as you want. With a standard spellcaster, you always have to ask "Should I use this spell here, or will I have greater need for it some time later today?", but with a warlock or rogue, the only thing limiting your use of your nifty abilities is your number of actions: You never need to hold back.

[Tokiko Mima]

The standard warlock is pretty weak, relatively speaking. You'll never match a full caster and your selection of Invocations is EXTREMELY limited. Because your Eldritch blast is a standard action, you're blown away in damage by a rogue the moment the rogue gets multiple attacks. What the Warlock class has to look forward to is having one of the more awesome UMD skills, where they can manufacture and use almost any item, scroll, or other magic device.

There are a few things the Warlock can do to lessen these drawbacks. Eldritch Glaive from Dragon magic lets you get in multiple attacks with your full attack, and is highly recommended at later levels when you can fly around and be invisible all the time. No one expects a glaive attack to come from directly above them.

Also recommended is Hellfire Warlock from Fiendish Codex II. It adds +2d6 Hellfire damage every single level, instead of +1d6 every 3 or 4 levels. You'll usually need to sacrifice a level to take Binder (Naberius) or Incanate (Strongheart Vest) in order to mitigate the Constitution loss associated with Hellfire, however.

I know races with a lot of LA are usually very bad, but in the case of a fledgling Warlock, you might want to think long and hard about choosing Pixie. It's bonuses to Warlock related abilities are massive (+8 Dex! +6 Cha! +6 Intelligence!), and the small size only helps you, and doesn't cut down on damage one bit. It also helps that you get two higher tier warlock abilities, namely flight and greater invisibility, right off the bat and saves you room to pick other invocations.

My opinion is that Warlock is underpowered if not optimized in most cases, but if you figure out and use the appropriate synergies it can become a fieriously powerful class that is tenacious enough to challenge most any monster, especially since it can take advantage of other classes depleting resources, by for example, sitting at the back and nonstop dispelling every single buffed enemy then vanishing as soon as it's confronted.

[skywalker]

Could you please define broken?

I know a DM who bans the warlock because they can use hideous blow on every attack if they wish, which means they can add 3d6 of damage to every attack. This makes them more powerful in low-level hack&slash.

I will add my voice the chorus of:Warlocks are simply fun.

I also consider them slightly underpowered.

[Tokiko Mima]

Could you please define broken?

I know a DM who bans the warlock because they can use hideous blow on every attack if they wish, which means they can add 3d6 of damage to every attack. This makes them more powerful in low-level hack&slash.

I will add my voice the chorus of:Warlocks are simply fun.

I also consider them slightly underpowered.

I'd let him know that he's looking at the area of levels where fighters begin to get multiple attacks in a round, most classes are getting their 3rd level spells, and Druids are learning Wildshape. There is a large bump in power, but Hideous Blow is an awful Invocation because it requires a Warlock to be in melee range, gets only a single attack, and it's a regular attack roll, not a touch attack. I hardly think a Warlock would be getting a hit every time, and 3d6 is easily outshone by a fighter with a few charging feats and Power Attack.

I think what really makes lower level Warlocks broken, if anything, is the Summon Swarm Invocation. It's completely awesome for a spell available at first level that can be cast endlessly.

[Attilargh]

Don't forget to warn your DM and fellow players in advance if you decide to pick up the class, mind. The unlimited uses and 24-hour long invocations might come as a bit of a shock and give a bad first impression. They did for me.

[Guy_Whozevl]

I play a Warlock in one of my campaigns and it plays quite easily. It has great versitility, with UMD and interaction skills that can be boosted further by an invocation you can take. The damage is solid, but nothing to write home about, while the other class features have their merits. However, while it may seem overpowered quite early, with infinite flight and shattering sprees, the curve balances out at about level 5+ and becomes underpowered post level 10. For low level campaigns, it can be useful. What I most like about it is the ability to fill in for primary spellcasters with UMD; in my group, I am the backup cleric and primary mage (using a wand of lightning bolt we chanced upon).

[skywalker]

I'd let him know that he's looking at the area of levels where fighters begin to get multiple attacks in a round, most classes are getting their 3rd level spells, and Druids are learning Wildshape. There is a large bump in power, but Hideous Blow is an awful Invocation because it requires a Warlock to be in melee range, gets only a single attack, and it's a regular attack roll, not a touch attack. I hardly think a Warlock would be getting a hit every time, and 3d6 is easily outshone by a fighter with a few charging feats and Power Attack.

I think what really makes lower level Warlocks broken, if anything, is the Summon Swarm Invocation. It's completely awesome for a spell available at first level that can be cast endlessly.

I don't want to de-rail this thread complaining about the lack of powergaming(or even effective character building) in my group, but the fighter took power attack just to get cleave. The fighter also doesn't own any splatbooks.

[/de-rail]

attilargh said it a lot better, it can be surprising to inexperienced DMs and to other players that you can float, walk on walls, or be invisible all day. Some people decide that's broken.

Just take a look at your game first, see if the (somewhat) unique offerings of the class will change your game seriously.

[Kurald Galain]

I know a DM who bans the warlock because they can use hideous blow on every attack if they wish, which means they can add 3d6 of damage to every attack. This makes them more powerful in low-level hack&slash.

Except that it doesn't. They can do that starting at fifth level (at which point +10 damage is hardly overpowering), and hideous blow as written grants an opportunity attack to your opponent.

I also consider them slightly underpowered.

Yep. The whole "shtick" of the warlock is having infinite spells per day. However, in point of fact, you really don't need to use all that many spells in a day, like, ever. As early as third level, a wizard or cleric is unlikely to run out of spells all that often, and the chance only goes down.

That said, warlocks are cool and flavorful, and among the easier classes for beginners to learn.

[Cuddly]

If your group doesn't powergame, then Warlocks will seem overpowered, simply because he can blast damage all day, from range, with only touch attacks. To a group with a wizard that's hot for fireball, it'll seem really great. If the group consists of powergamers, then the warlock won't seem overpowered.

[Titanium Dragon]

If your group doesn't powergame, then Warlocks will seem overpowered, simply because he can blast damage all day, from range, with only touch attacks. To a group with a wizard that's hot for fireball, it'll seem really great. If the group consists of powergamers, then the warlock won't seem overpowered.

I disagree; wizards will still seem good in comparison, as while they are more limited in number of spells, it honestly doesn't matter once you hit the mid levels as you are unlikely to run out.

Warlocks only really shine if you have to go through long, gruelling dungeons, but precious few dungeons/games are so.

[streakster]

If your group doesn't powergame, then Warlocks will seem overpowered, simply because he can blast damage all day, from range, with only touch attacks. To a group with a wizard that's hot for fireball, it'll seem really great. If the group consists of powergamers, then the warlock won't seem overpowered.

I must here disagree - the Warlock, at higher levels, is actually a bit weak. He focuses on blasting, generally - quite a lot of class abilities are based of it - which is one the weaker things to be doing. Sure, they shine at levels 5 and below, but everything after that is downhill. A powergamer won't touch a Warlock, because they simply are very hard to cheese - use the Hellfire trick above, and you're still nowhere near full caster power.

An absolute blast to play though.

[Duke of URL]

Why is everyone assuming the Warlock is focused on blasting? I think a more effective Warlock build is a battlefield controller, who is using invocations more to direct, confuse, and hassle the enemy -- damage output is a secondary concern.

[AslanCross]

Why is everyone assuming the Warlock is focused on blasting? I think a more effective Warlock build is a battlefield controller, who is using invocations more to direct, confuse, and hassle the enemy -- damage output is a secondary concern.

Due to its limited list, it really doesn't have that many controlling invocations. One I really like, however, is chilling tentacles. Evard's Black Tentacles and then some.

[Dorizzit]

I really like Warlocks. The few abilities they learn make up for it by being at will and very fun.

[Starbuck_II]

Due to its limited list, it really doesn't have that many controlling invocations. One I really like, however, is chilling tentacles. Evard's Black Tentacles and then some.

Bestow Curse is nice: even better even if person succeeds on save, they take a penalty to hit. Nice upgrade. And a curse like 50% to act from now on is useful (not that all full caster didn't have that at same time or earlier).

Dispel magic at will can be useful (until level 17+ than you'll rarely make the check).

See Invisible/flight can be useful all day. Even if the flight is slow in feet (land speed so Dwarfs fly slow too). It is good manueverability.

As mentioned Summon Swarm is useful. Unlike the Wizard version, yoursis concentration so no danger to party. If swarm tries to move; that split second end concentration.
I'll never understand why you can't control a swarm with any magic spell: no summon swarm that is controllable...

[Aquillion]

Well, Warlocks aren't as powerful as a full-caster, simply for the reasons that they can't either 1) Become an unstoppable juggernaut of death or 2) slaughter an entire encounter with one well-placed spell. However, they're still a lot better than fighters/monks.

Debatable, for fighters at least. A decently-made fighter is going to be capable of outputting overwhelmingly more damage than a warlock ever can. Warlocks do have UMD, but overall their other class features are underwhelming. Granted, the fighter will probably only get that damage at close range... but at least he can beat up creatures quickly when the wizard holds them down. In a typical high-level party dynamic, the warlock is just going to be throwing around pings that don't contribute meaningful damage (unless they have a heavy ability-damage focused build, and even that isn't that great.)

Many invocations can be copied by magical items that are relatively cheap at higher levels, and if you look at the high-level ones there's pretty clear drop in power (lower-level invocations often grant spells from around that level at will or all day... higher-level ones are often more along the lines of flavor.)

Much like with the Sorcerer and spontaneous casting, I think what it comes down to is that they overestimated the value of the warlock's all-day abilities.

[Duke of URL]

Due to its limited list, it really doesn't have that many controlling invocations. One I really like, however, is chilling tentacles. Evard's Black Tentacles and then some.

It is lacking in Dark invocations especially. Too bad WotC probably won't publish any more 3.5 material once 4e comes out... something like Complete Invoker or whatnot could really, really go a long way to improving the existing Warlock and creating other invocation-based classes that use similar mechanics, but various different flavors (e.g., Warlock becomes a "fiendish" invoker, Dragonfire Adept becomes a "draconic" invoker, could add "fey" and "celestial" variations, etc.). I've actually started a homebrew project on it a while back, but it's taken a backseat to immediate concerns.

It's just a shame that the Warlock and it's associated invocations aren't OGL, or I'd take on the project myself under the VP banner.

[Dan_Hemmens]

It's just a shame that the Warlock and it's associated invocations aren't OGL, or I'd take on the project myself under the VP banner.

While they aren't OGL, you can't actually copyright game mechanics, only the texts that describe them. Certainly I can't see how there'd be any problems with your creating other classes which are mechanically the same as Warlocks but have a distinct flavour. As long as you aren't reproducing the actual text from Complete Arcane you should be fine.

[Duke of URL]

While they aren't OGL, you can't actually copyright game mechanics, only the texts that describe them. Certainly I can't see how there'd be any problems with your creating other classes which are mechanically the same as Warlocks but have a distinct flavour. As long as you aren't reproducing the actual text from Complete Arcane you should be fine.

I'm not sure I have a good enough lawyer to test that theory. :

As I'm currently working on three products, it'll have to wait anyway.

[Burley]

I'd like to start by thanking the OP for this opportunity, and apologizing to everybody else for having to see me, yet again, glorify my favorite class.

Warlocks are tight. Super tight. You want them to be good in a fight? You got it. You want them to have utility? You got it.
A ranged warlock is a god send. High Dex and a touch attack means hitting a lot. Now, a lot of people jump on me about how a fighter can shoot twice at X level. Well, a warlock can only shoot once, but he'll hit more frequently at that level and do more damage. You need magic weapons and junk to do the kind of damage a warlock can do naked.
Melee warlocks can be just as good. Take Weapon Finesse and Eldritch Glaive, Yo! Hit just as often as you did at ranged, but you get multiple attacks at...what 8th level? Something like that? It's still a touch attack, too! Combine that with Improved Feint, and you've got a DC of 10 on most everything. At 8th level with my last character, I had a +11 to hit in melee, and was doing 4d6 (maybe more...I was usually drunk ) and an extra attack. And, you're not even throwing yourself into proper melee, because it's a reach weapon! Egads, man! It's phenominal!

Now, all you folks saying there aren't enough Invocations. Complete Arcane, Complete Mage and Dragon Magic are full of great invocations. I think the Complete Mage has the least amount of them, and there are still more than a dozen. Considering a Warlock only gets 12 naturally by level 20...you've got a lot of options.
Also, the Warlock can be good for a lot of prestige classes. One of the more flavorful PrCs I've seen is for Warlocks and doesn't need you to multi-class AT ALL!
Take all that, add in Damage Reduction, Fast Healing, the Item Creation fiat, and the ability to use any magic item whenever you want...That's pretty great. Pretty darn great.
My last party consisted of my Warlock, a Druid with an Air Elemental, and a Sorcerer/Rogue/(A PrC from Races of the Dragon). I was the Blast, the Meat Shield, the Healer, and the Skill Monkey. I know it's because I, as a player, created my character more intelligently than the others, but still...I was the party.

A Warlock is often seen as being able to fill all roles, but not overshadow anybody. A smart player can focus their warlock to be the best in practically ANY role, and still be helpful in any other roll.

That being said, read my signature. I think that'd help clarify some things...And, I get 1cp everytime somebody reads it.

[SilentNight]

I'm just going to add my voice to the chorus. I really have to second that warlocks are better at battle control than at blasting. Vitrolic blast in particular is very nice at destroying seige equipment. I was actually going to mention Burley Warlock's sig until I saw that he posted. One thing though, the warlock will never be a blaster.

Well, Warlocks aren't as powerful as a full-caster, simply for the reasons that they can't either 1) Become an unstoppable juggernaut of death or 2) slaughter an entire encounter with one well-placed spell. However, they're still a lot better than fighters/monks. The only cheese-factor they have is UMD, but that can be said of any rogue, bard, etc.

I worked this out in my head yesterday: Ftr 12/Rog 1= 390 damage per round with a bow. My group's power gamer must be rubbing off on me.