Why Warlocks are Weak

[Prak]

It is decent at low levels and it's a newbie-friendly class. Adding the extra invocations and EB damage would help, but it wouldn't be a real fix. Basically, it'd allow them to graduate from a total newbie-party to one that was barely optimizing. They'd still be firmly behind casters.

You may call me control freak, but I don't want each class being as powerful as wizard/codzilla/psion. I once had experience with fullcaster party — and I figured out that only decent combat challenge against such party is made through some abusing or unballanced abilities or through opposed spellcasters.
So my purpose is to make class viable, not "obviously suck" nor "trap choice". Speaking of which, may be I have to increase their DR to at least twice it's current value and to invent some new class features, like drawing in to sor/wiz list for spells to make invocations (large field to abusing, testing needed)

This is the thread where I posted my Arachnomancer based Warlock PrC, it has some new invocations as well, all spider themed, but they should be a decent start. Web at will is awesome, but not necessarily unbalanced. Web line is actually not good enough to matter by the time you enter the class, so it should probably have been a standard invocation instead of a "need to be this class to get" invocation. So that's something else to watch for, make sure a new invocation matters at the level you can get it.

In that case, add in the ability either to swap invocations every level, or perhaps to swap all your invocations every level.

One of the biggest problems with the warlock is that if you make a bad invocation choice, you're stuck with that. This would make it more forgiving to players, and it'd still fall in the power level you're looking for.

Hell, make it so they can perform a lengthy ritual to swap invocations. Like three hours per, so it's down time only, and they can't completely change their choices while casters refuel, except at low levels.

[RobbyPants]

That'd work too. Just make it work after a full night's rest, or something. It ends up with the cleric's and druid's ability to totally fix a mistake in a day, but it still wont' be as powerful because the invocations are pretty much weaker across the board.

It'd give them a chance to experiment with those few invocations that look cool but don't quite make the cut normally, and would allow them to use those really situational ones that you can't ever justify taking otherwise.

[Prak]

makes the Bane essence blast a lot better too. It's really difficult to justify devoting something that may be as much as half your power on hurting a single type, if you can swap it out based on what you expect to face, that makes it a good deal better, without making it particularly unbalancing.

[Princess]

One of the biggest problems with the warlock is that if you make a bad invocation choice, you're stuck with that. This would make it more forgiving to players, and it'd still fall in the power level you're looking for.

I allow free retrain, so if player found out that invocation A is a bad choice then he can freely swap it at the next module (i do not allow swapping in midst though).

[Akula]

One of the biggest problems with the warlock is that if you make a bad invocation choice, you're stuck with that. This would make it more forgiving to players, and it'd still fall in the power level you're looking for.

I allow free retrain, so if player found out that invocation A is a bad choice then he can freely swap it at the next module (i do not allow swapping in midst though).

Do you also make wizards keep the same spell list every day in a module? If not, why force the equivalent on the warlock? His spells are weaker and he has fewer of them printed, the odds he breaks your game by switching lists is substantially lower than the wizard or cleric's.

[Princess]

Do you also make wizards keep the same spell list every day in a module?

No, but it's hard to find scrolls in my games.

breaks your game by switching lists is substantially lower than the wizard or cleric's.

It's not about game breaking. It's about just staying in his invocations.

If not, why force the equivalent on the warlock?

I have to say that my "enforcements" are more warlock-friendly than of 95% of DMs.

[Prak]

I would still say that allowing an invocation switch through a lengthy ritual would be fine. You can say he's communing with his dark patron and petitioning for new powers or something. Maybe doing it in module means he gets a task he has to undertake in return for the power swap.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

-the various monster feats for Improved Spell-like Ability can be used for a massive damage boost when stacked. Use an Empowered, Maximized Eldritch Blast and a Quickened, Empowered, Maximized Eldritch Blast on round one and that adds up to a lot of damage. Usually it's enough to one-shot something level appropriate. Violate SLA turns half the damage vile, which means you can kill regenning and fast healing things in a particularly nasty way. Mortalbane adds another 2d6 when you need it.

Ug, Mortalbane. I had to ban that feat from the game.

Not because I thought it was overpowered (in fact, I considered it in the category as "not a deal"). It's because despite being shown the text in the Book of VD (that taking the feat multiple times means you get 5 more uses per day), he insisted that taking mortalbane more than once multiplied the damage (2d6 for once, 4d6 for twice, etc). Through being a human and flaws, he was trying to argue without irony that his eldritch blast did 11d6 damage at level 1 because he had taken it 5 times. As many times a day as he wanted.

I only rarely ban things for power reasons, but I have banned things because my players couldn't/wouldn't understand it. He still tries to gloat about how he "tricked the DM" years later, despite me bringing out the book every time he tries to.

[Pariah Dog]

Call me ignorant if you will, but a few weeks ago had an argument during the pizza break of our last game with the party warlock regarding the globe of invulnerability argument. He was insisting that the spell does not tell him to go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. Could someone explain that one to me? I think his argument hinges on the word invocation and the spell was written before the class existed.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Call me ignorant if you will, but a few weeks ago had an argument during the pizza break of our last game with the party warlock regarding the globe of invulnerability argument. He was insisting that the spell does not tell him to go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. Could someone explain that one to me? I think his argument hinges on the word invocation and the spell was written before the class existed.

An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe. Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items. However, any type of spell can be cast through or out of the magical globe. Spells of 4th level and higher are not affected by the globe, nor are spells already in effect when the globe is cast. The globe can be brought down by a targeted dispel magic spell, but not by an area dispel magic. You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.

Invocations are spell-like abilities. End of story.

[Prak]

...excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower. The area or effect of any such spells does not include the area of the lesser globe of invulnerability. Such spells fail to affect any target located within the globe. Excluded effects include spell-like abilities and spells or spell-like effects from items. ...

My friend pointed out the bolded wording. That really sucks.

[koz]

The workaround to this is blast shape or blast essence invocs, which have a higher level than 3rd. Stupid, I know, but that's even the official word on that.

[K]

The upshot of the wonky spell level of your blast is that you can use the Improved Spell-like Ability feats on them. the downside is that the spell level is no way appropriate to character level in most cases unless you keep flushing invocations down to toilet.

[Koumei]

I think you'll find the feat Supernatural Transformation is actually the workaround. Or playing a better class. But if you really must be a Warlock, your first feat is going to be Supernatural Transformation. As an added bonus, any save DC (Eldritch Essences) scales, you can fire it point-blank with no AoO, and it ignores SR.

[Princess]

I think you'll find the feat Supernatural Transformation is actually the workaround.

No you won't. Eldritch blast is class ability, thus it do not follow the "innate" requirement. As stated in faq innate sla are sla from racial progression, not class progression.

[Kaelik]

I think you'll find the feat Supernatural Transformation is actually the workaround.

No you won't. Eldritch blast is class ability, thus it do not follow the "innate" requirement. As stated in faq innate sla are sla from racial progression, not class progression.

Um... An Eldritch Blast is innate.

An FAQ claim that innate means racial progression is no more valid than an FAQ claim that innate means upside down pineapple.

[Princess]

Can a warlock qualify for the Supernatural Transformation feat (SS 39) and change one of his invocations into a supernatural ability?
No. The warlock’s spell-like abilities are learned (from class levels), not innate (that is, part of his racial traits).

page 28 last faq.

What does “innate spell-like ability” mean for the purpose of qualifying for the Supernatural Transformation feat (SS 39)? Does the Innate Spell feat create an innate spell-like ability?
“Innate,” for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat, means “gained normally as part of the creature’s race, type, subtype, or kind.”
A duergar’s enlarge person and invisibility spell-like abilities, a tanar’ri’s summon tanar’ri spell-like ability, and a juvenile gold dragon’s bless spell-like ability are all “innate” spell-like abilities. A warlock’s invocations, a paladin’s ability to call her special mount, and any spell-like abilities gained from your class, feats, or similar sources are not.
Despite its name, even the Innate Spell feat doesn’t create an “innate” spell-like ability for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat. This is simply an unfortunate case of the same word being used for two different purposes.

p 45 last faq

A faq tells what is "innate" in terms of DnD.

[Kaelik]

I think you are confused. I'm not saying the FAQ doesn't say it.

I'm saying the FAQ is not allowed to make up rules that aren't in the actual rules.

[Princess]

In your way warlock still sucks because "innate spell-like ability" prereq in SNT is not fluff, but mechanics. Speaking of which no one can take it because there is no sla defined as innate. That's RAW.
RAI is told in FAQ.

Btw, I think that even if you persuade your DM to house rule SNT to affect Eldritch blast - it will be just a trap choice. Loosing ability to use metasla just because of some wiz may say globe.. well, warlock is not pvp class. If you go killing monsters supernatural transformation is a trap choice. If you go kill mass of npc with class levels.. then chances to meet sorc with globe are vague, so goes for wizard with memorized globe. I'd say that if you meet lots of enemies with such stuff the problem is that DM optimises mobs against you.

[Kaelik]

In your way warlock still sucks because "innate spell-like ability" prereq in SNT is not fluff, but mechanics. Speaking of which no one can take it because there is no sla defined as innate. That's RAW.
RAI is told in FAQ.

Btw, I think that even if you persuade your DM to house rule SNT to affect Eldritch blast - it will be just a trap choice. Loosing ability to use metasla just because of some wiz may say globe.. well, warlock is not pvp class. If you go killing monsters supernatural transformation is a trap choice. If you go kill mass of npc with class levels.. then chances to meet sorc with globe are vague, so goes for wizard with memorized globe. I'd say that if you meet lots of enemies with such stuff the problem is that DM optimises mobs against you.

1) The Warlock is trash either way, I'm not talking about the balance of the option, only the legality.

2) Innate has an actual english meaning, if it isn't defined term, then we use the enlgish meaning of the word.

3) The FAQ doesn't get to redefine innate, just like it can't redefine the word green. It can't make up definitions that then have force.

4) RAI is not told in the FAQ. One guys opinion is told in the FAQ, and that one guy didn't write 90% of what exists, and it is explicitly told that he doesn't ask people what they meant when the FAQ is written.

5) You know who else has globes of invulnerability? All angels and anyone who can use lesser planar binding.

[CatharzGodfoot]

One reason the FAQ ruling is questionable is that the class description of the warlock's powers classifies them as being "innate". Saying that they aren't is about as nonsensical as saying that a wizard's spells aren't "magical" or "arcane".

Anyway, the upshot of eldritch blast being raped by niche spells is that you can empower it at 6th level and (if you can get +1 to your caster level) quicken it at 9th. And if you do run into someone running invulnerability, just use an eldritch essence invocation.

[Princess]

2) Innate has an actual english meaning, if it isn't defined term, then we use the enlgish meaning of the word.

Attack has defined english meaning too. Still detect magic is considered to be attack for purposes of resetting invisibility despite it attack as good as radar. So in game terms we have to use terms given to us, or house rule them if we don't like them.
Speaking of which, referring to "actual meaning of the words" is usually used deliberately and only when it is beneficial.

RAI is not told in the FAQ. One guys opinion is told in the FAQ, and that one guy didn't write 90% of what exists, and it is explicitly told that he doesn't ask people what they meant when the FAQ is written.

So what? No one minds new prestiges written not by class designers. I bet snt and warlock were written by different peoples.

5) You know who else has globes of invulnerability? All angels and anyone who can use lesser planar binding.

And who actually uses them? I seen globes used three times. First one was arena against warlock, second one was arena wizard against hundred of warmages, third one was used against overmeta magic missile Missile Mage. Warlock is not priority one target so it's hard to believe his 11d6 damage will be treated as requiring immediate dead-lock.

[Kaelik]

Attack has defined english meaning too. Still detect magic is considered to be attack for purposes of resetting invisibility despite it attack as good as radar. So in game terms we have to use terms given to us, or house rule them if we don't like them.

Yes, and since no definition for innate is given, we use the standard definition. If there were a definition given for innate by the rules, then we would use that. But there isn't.

Speaking of which, referring to "actual meaning of the words" is usually used deliberately and only when it is beneficial.

It's used whenever the game doesn't actually define a term. It's only specifically referenced when someone wants to invent their own definition that is not in the rules or the usual definition, like you trying to invent a definition, I wouldn't have to talk about it.

So what? No one minds new prestiges written not by class designers. I bet snt and warlock were written by different peoples.

Um, so? You claimed the FAQ tells us what the RAI is. It doesn't. Problem solved.

And who actually uses them? I seen globes used three times. First one was arena against warlock, second one was arena wizard against hundred of warmages, third one was used against overmeta magic missile Missile Mage. Warlock is not priority one target so it's hard to believe his 11d6 damage will be treated as requiring immediate dead-lock.

Learn to read. All Angels automatically have lesser globe of invulnerability active on themselves at all times at no action cost. It just is there, even if they don't want it, it's still there. Therefore, it's in existence every time you fight an angel or some types of demon automatically no matter how bad it is.

[Princess]

Yes, and since no definition for innate is given, we use the standard definition. If there were a definition given for innate by the rules, then we would use that. But there isn't.

If no definition is given we wait for clarify. Faq acted as clarify.

It's used whenever the game doesn't actually define a term.

Its official faq.

Um, so? You claimed the FAQ tells us what the RAI is. It doesn't. Problem solved.

Not solved. We have no other official source, like developers notes or such.

Learn to read. All Angels automatically have lesser globe of invulnerability active on themselves at all times at no action cost. It just is there, even if they don't want it, it's still there. Therefore, it's in existence every time you fight an angel or some types of demon automatically no matter how bad it is.

If you fighting an angel (CR ranging from 14 to 23) without essence or shape invocation of at least 4th level...

[ubernoob]

Angel is a subtype. There is no minimum CR to be an angel.