Why Warlocks are Weak

[Princess]

Custom-made CR 7 angels just to humour warlock?

[Kaelik]

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

No source has yet defined the word "is" I guess you can't play the game because you are still waiting for clarification.

FAQ cannot clarify something that has a definition. FAQ has no authority to clarify anything that isn't explicitly spelled out in the rules.

Its official faq.

The FAQ can answer questions. The FAQ cannot make up new rules. If a word is not currently defined, the only answer the FAQ has the authority to give is "use the common definition of the word" it does not have the authority to make up a definition.

That would be the purview of the Official Make Up Errata On The Spot When Asked a Question.

But the MUEOTSWAAQ doesn't exist, so the FAQ can't do that.

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

We still don't have an official source. The FAQ is not the official source for rules as intended. There is no such source. The FAQ does not give the rules as intended.

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

Or you know, the CR 6 Angels in BOEDs that can be Planar Bound. Oops. You are dumb.

[Princess]

FAQ has no authority to clarify anything that isn't explicitly spelled out in the rules.

You remind me of Core-only purists. They also like to tell that supplements are untrue, and should be ignored because they have no right to invent new rules that breaks precious core balance.

Or you know, the CR 6 Angels in BOEDs that can be Planar Bound. Oops. You are dumb.

Angels meant to humour all spellcasters in the party because at level 6 you have no 4th level spells? Nonetheless if you tend to meet swarms of this angels playing at low levels then the trouble here is your DM.

The FAQ can answer questions.

So by your way they are useless because they only can answer "I cannot find existing rule" questions.

[Prak]

The FAQ is just some jack off giving his opinion. What you want for rules clarification is errata. And If you look at the actual Warlock errata, by the designers, not in the CA errata, they do specifically address Supernatural Transformation:

Q: Can the feat Supernatural Transformation from Savage Species change the Warlocks Eldritch Blast and Invocations from Spell Like Abilities to Supernatural Abilities?

A: I chatted with the developers, and we're of the opinion that the term "innate" in the description of the Supernatural Transformation feat means "spell-like abilities you got because of your race, not because of any class choices you might have made." So that would rule out the warlock's invocations and eldritch blast.

That said, we're not 100% sure that the feat would necessarily be broken for the warlock. The warlock is a pretty feat-thirsty class, so there is a real cost in picking this up to make your eldritch blast SR-proof, when you've got an eldritch essence available that can do the same thing. But just to be on the cautious side, we're saying no. Rule Zero us on this one if you like.

(As an aside...we've discovered that the word "innate" is one of those flavor words that often carries a mechanical connotation, and it's not always meant to. So be careful in trying to extend this particular ruling to other "innate" things, because "innate" seems to mean different things in different contexts.)

(bold mine)

So, granted, the developers have decided an innate spell like is a racial one, not a class one. However, Warlock is supposed to represent you getting power from demons, possibly as the child of someone who made that deal, so innate could be argued from a flavour standpoint. Complete Mage even speculates that warlock invocations are a third fourth fifth form of magic, "Innate" since they have more in common with the magic of dragons and fiends than wizards.
(granted, this is fluff speculation, not rules mechanics, but, still.)

[Starmaker]

So by your way they are useless because they only can answer "I cannot find existing rule" questions.

People get rules wrong, or don't get them, all the time. FAQ can answer "Is there a rule for X?", "What does Rule Y do?" and "I think Rule Z means K, amirite?" It can also answer "Rules M and N seem to be contradictory, are they?" with "No, ur dum" or "Yes, I humbly suggest you disregard the stupid and resolve it as follows: P". But in no way the FAQ can establish the one true interpretation of an unclear rule, or officially resolve paradoxes, or even say what the RAI is, because barring obvious typos (Factotum spells) only people who wrote the rules can say what they intended and the FAQ guys do not speak to them.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hold on.

I thought that Andy Collins was in charge of the FAQ (being the Sage) back when 3.5E was being run. Andy Collins being the lead developer and all.

[Princess]

A: I chatted with the developers, and we're of the opinion that the term "innate" in the description of the Supernatural Transformation feat means "spell-like abilities you got because of your race, not because of any class choices you might have made." So that would rule out the warlock's invocations and eldritch blast.

What can I say... I can say nothing better than this.

[For Valor]

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm

[Prak]

A: I chatted with the developers, and we're of the opinion that the term "innate" in the description of the Supernatural Transformation feat means "spell-like abilities you got because of your race, not because of any class choices you might have made." So that would rule out the warlock's invocations and eldritch blast.

What can I say... I can say nothing better than this.

Except that then the developers should have explicitly stated that in the rules somewhere... you know, a section where they define all their words that mean special things in D&D, like an alphabetized list of words and definitions.

God, if only, eh?

[Kaelik]

You remind me of Core-only purists. They also like to tell that supplements are untrue, and should be ignored because they have no right to invent new rules that breaks precious core balance.

So in other words, I'm completely right, and it's easier to try to associate me with someone else because you have no leg to stand on.

Shut up. I'm not claiming Core is balanced, I obviously don't claim supplements don't count since we are talking about how an obscure supplement feat interacts with a supplement class.

Learn to address what people actually say, instead of fabrications of your own making.

Angels meant to humour all spellcasters in the party because at level 6 you have no 4th level spells? Nonetheless if you tend to meet swarms of this angels playing at low levels then the trouble here is your DM.

Once again, you are showing how stupid you are. a) I assume you meant humble, because that is not how the word humor/humour works. b) You don't need to fight swarms of them, you just need to fight one, since it's an AoE effect.

2) The Wizard BBEG who you fought and escaped? He can just planar bind an angel to completely negate your character unless you use higher up invocations. These things can be the tool of anyone with access to level 5 spells.

So by your way they are useless because they only can answer "I cannot find existing rule" questions.

Other questions too. But you know what they can't do?

"Well, I don't like the rule as it is, so I'm going to fucking make up a different one because I'm bored."

[Princess]

So in other words, I'm completely right, and it's easier to try to associate me with someone else because you have no leg to stand on.

In other words if someone hates Complete Mage or FAQ it is useless to prove they both are official and more legal than some forum chats.

b) You don't need to fight swarms of them, you just need to fight one, since it's an AoE effect.

Ok. I fight one. Somehow I defeat him (probably my fellow barb-charger dispatches it). Spending a feat on one-combat stuff is actually sink. And yes, to make this feat worthy your dm have to swarm them so you meet them at least once per five encounters.

The Wizard BBEG who you fought and escaped? He can just planar bind an angel to completely negate your character unless you use higher up invocations. These things can be the tool of anyone with access to level 5 spells.

Just use some 4+ level invocation. It is dumb to whine about your first level ability being unable to kill everything.

[K]

The "official FAQ" is just collected answers from Skip William's Ask Wizard articles. Considering that is was constantly changing, often wrong on actual facts above and beyond unworkable interpretations, and was generally not useful, I don't know why anyone cares about what's in it.

I mean, it's pretty spurious logic to not let Supernatural Transformation apply to Eldritch Blast. Warlock has the "flavor" of getting his powers from faeries or demons (hence his alignment restrictions), and the feat applies to a term that was interchangable in 3.0 with "any spell-like".

[Kaelik]

In other words if someone hates Complete Mage or FAQ it is useless to prove they both are official and more legal than some forum chats.

See, there you go being dumb again. Complete Mage is official, but the FAQ is not. The FAQ is just exactly as official as some internet chat, in that neither one can make up new rules, only suggest possible houserules.

Just use some 4+ level invocation. It is dumb to whine about your first level ability being unable to kill everything.

BBEGs are usually a few levels higher than PCs. Anyone with 5th level spells can do this.

When the BBEG has 5th level spells, you don't have 4+ level invocations. Because you are a warlock, and you suck.

[Princess]

See, there you go being dumb again. Complete Mage is official, but the FAQ is not.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a I clearly see the word "official" there.
But as far as I can see you're the type of person who deliberately can ignore some keywords.

When the BBEG has 5th level spells, you don't have 4+ level invocations. Because you are a warlock, and you suck.

Eldritch chain anyone? And if you have no access to chain then whole party is screwed because wizards and codzilla cannot have level 4 spells on level 6.

[Kaelik]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a I clearly see the word "official" there.

Thank you for not being able to read. The FAQ is not allowed to make up new rules. Why is that so hard to understand?

Is it trying to make a new rule? Yes.

Is it allowed to make new rules? No.

Eldritch chain anyone? And if you have no access to chain then whole party is screwed because wizards and codzilla cannot have level 4 spells on level 6.

So much stupid it hurts.

1) Are you seriously going to start playing Schroedingers Warlock on me? Fucking Seriously?

2) Yes, it is theoretically possible to have Eldritch Chain at level 6. But since you are a Warlock, and Eldritch Chain sucks, and Fell Flight, Walk Unseen, and Flee the Scene don't, you probably have one of those, followed by another one at level 8, when you get your second whole lesser invocation.

[Sashi]

The FAQ is official, what it's not is errata. This makes the FAQ a living Oberoni Fallacy because it constantly tries to solve problems through deciding that rules work differently now.

[Lago PARANOIA]

How long have you been under the impression that the Oberoni Fallacy is not a way most games are run in reality, Sashi?



Anyone who does applied min-maxxing knows that any application of rules to make your character more powerful needs to be approved by the rules, errata, and by what the game designers says that's necessary. If you leave yourself open then it increases the chance that your build will be shot down. So if there is a hole, like with the FAQ, throw away that character sheet and start the fuck over. It doesn't matter whether you're right by a reasonable interpretation, what matters is that your case is 100% unassailable without doubt.

And in the world of fanboyism, who are you going to trust? Some rat bastard who doesn't give a shit about what he's writing, or your lying eyes and logic?

Anything else is just useless wank.

[Princess]

The FAQ is not allowed to make up new rules. Why is that so hard to understand?

It's you the one with troubles. Prak_Anima gave link above about designers RAI. And it matches faq.

2) Yes, it is theoretically possible to have Eldritch Chain at level 6.

Is it theoretically possible to have level 4 spells at level 6? If not then your whole example with CR 6 angel is a total bullshit about dick DM who exploits poorly balanced mob. By the way I just read BoED, I see no CR 6 angels there. Would you tell us it's name?

[Username17]

The FAQ answer is that they decided that Supernatural Transformation meant "No warlocks allowed" for no reason and also declared that the terms of the ruling should not be applied to anything else in the game that used the same words because they were inconsistent. It's a fearful and kneejerk nerf to an already weak as shit class that is not only indefensible, but even admitted as being indefensible by the people who wrote it in the first place.

It's the 5-4 Bush Wins ruling of D&D. And it's not even in the right place because they didn't actually get something along those lines into the errata, having - perhaps - too much shame and pride to actually lay themselves quite so on the line for such a shitty ruling.

The bottom line is that the developers acknowledge that "Innate" does not mean "not from Warlock levels". Which is good, because there is a whole shit tonne of stuff that uses the word "innate" and is similarly unrestricted. They nonetheless came out and said that in the specific singular instance of the Supernatural Transformation Feat, that it was part of the "No Homers Club" and that Warlocks couldn't have it on the grounds that it might make their class not-terrible in some fashion.

The ruling is a fucking joke. It's a blatant violation of the rules and the people who made it even acknowledge this fact right along side making it in the first place. And they tell you not to actually use the ruling anywhere in the game except while screwing over Warlocks out of that one obscure feat that synergizes with their class.

-Username17

[Princess]

Frank, so what? WotC made pretty much stupid rules or restrictions (for example more than half of so called exalted feats have nothing to do with good guys and represent just another not-especially-good buff). However if we want to discuss common DnD, not the "DnD I made at home", then we have to refer to those official rules even if they are stupid or sounds bad.

Sentences like "faq and developers thinks that warlock do not qualify for snt, but it we ignore it" are no better than "I made my own house-ruled warlock, you must use this one".

And they tell you not to actually use the ruling anywhere in the game except while screwing over Warlocks

The told that any sla from class levels (Summon mount for paladin, for example) do not qualify.

Also I notice that rules screwing warlock (and sorcerer) cause intense drama.

[Koumei]

Here's the thing, Princess: if you didn't read The Sage Advice (and you shouldn't - doing so lowers your quality of living), you'd never know about that dumb ruling. And because the Sage does not create or change rules (or rather, is in no capacity to do so and have it mean anything), you seriously can ignore anything ever said in it.

So similar to saying "For whatever reasons, we're specifically talking about 3.0 here. Any rules changes for 3.5 and Prestige Classes/Feats introduced in 3.5 don't apply, because we're just using 3.0", this discussion is specifically about 3.X, not "Whatever bullshit this guy spouts out in his little blog that no sensible people read".

[Kaelik]

Sentences like "faq and developers thinks that warlock do not qualify for snt, but it we ignore it" are no better than "I made my own house-ruled warlock, you must use this one".

You still aren't getting it.

If the FAQ tries to make new rules that are not in the actual rules, that is a houserule.

Saying "A Warlock can't take Supernatural Transformation because the FAQ says they can't." Is exactly like saying "I'm houseruling Warlock, and you have to use my houserules in your game."

Because the FAQ is not errata, and therefore cannot make new rules.

Rocket Science this is not.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that no matter how much correctly interpreted rules they throw out, their being right is bullshit in the face of a game authority that has most of the playerbase convinced that he's right and you're just a stuck-up rules lawyer trying to look cool?

Flail all you want guys, but Princess is right for all of the wrong reasons.

[Sashi]

How long have you been under the impression that the Oberoni Fallacy is not a way most games are run in reality, Sashi?

Yes, the vast majority of games are never run with the RAW exactly and entirely. In some cases (SR4 Hacking) it's houserules because the actual rules are basically impossible to understand and/or play with, in other cases (DnD 3E polymorph) it's willful self-nerfing because the actual rules are insaaaane. But that's actual MC's and players around a table and is not the Oberoni Fallacy.

The FAQ is specifically adjudicating how the actual rules work, so they're allowed to do things like torturous rules interpretations that make casting detect evil end invisibility, but they aren't allowed to say "Yes, this rule works this way, but we didn't intend to have it work that way, so it doesn't." without errata. The FAQ tries to sell itself as de facto errata and sometimes it succeeds (Sorcerer Quicken, which they even ended up writing an "arcane preparation" feat to let sorcerers prepare quickened spells), but even when it does it has to pretend its interpreting the rules. The FAQ entry would be more valid if it said "Yes, it works, but Savage Species is full of insane crazy talk so we suggest you just forget it exists."

Anyone who does applied min-maxxing knows that any application of rules to make your character more powerful needs to be approved by the rules, errata, and by what the game designers says that's necessary. If you leave yourself open then it increases the chance that your build will be shot down. So if there is a hole, like with the FAQ, throw away that character sheet and start the fuck over. It doesn't matter whether you're right by a reasonable interpretation, what matters is that your case is 100% unassailable without doubt.

There's a whole min-maxxer vs. munchkin debate brewing in this paragraph that I refuse to touch.

[Princess]

Kaelik I think we all are still waiting for CR 6 BoED angel name and page. Would you kindly?