Skip Vs. Warlocks

[fbmf]

Originally pointed out by Merestil over on Nifty

Skip's take on the Warlock!

Game On,
fbmf

[User3]

I still think Warlocks are good 4 level dips for rogues. you get a lot of customizable goodies in those 4 levels. And at the worst, you get a infinite-use 2d6 ray to stick on your +8d6 sneak attack in the event you run out of stuff to throw. A boost to your will save helps the rogue as well.

[Username17]

Your eldritch blast is your most potent ability

OMG.

This makes me use nettish contractions.

-Username17

[dbb]

So -- Skip aside -- what's the overall evaluation of the Warlock, now that the book's been out a while?

I know that Josh didn't seem all that impressed when CA first came out, but I'm wondering how the class has performed for those of you who've played them? Where does it fall in comparison to the other classes?

My very very very tentative evaluation has been that it's generally inferior to the real spellcasting classes and maybe around the level of the Sorcerer, or maybe slightly worse -- but I really don't have any experience with it and have never found it so interesting that I got into the kind of deep analysis that would give me any confidence in that evaluation. So I'm curious what y'all make of it.

--d.

[Username17]

Barring the quasi-infinite loops (which are really easy to clear up, just make all that crap into named bonuses), the Warlock ends up being a little weak.

Their big trick is to be able to shoot off an Eldritch Blast that is variously somewhat to astoundingly weak at all levels. At later levels they can hammer in a damned-good Black Tentacles based attack routine, but they can't do this at a lower level than a Wizard can.

Their unlimited uses on their abilities is almost completely meaningless, as almost all of their powers either last all day or have no use outside of being a combat action.

The Warlock is a superior base spellcasting mechanic in terms of ease of use and over-all fairness, but when actually placed against the previously existing spellcasting classes, it is game mechanically inferior.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1120258649[/unixtime]]
The Warlock is a superior base spellcasting mechanic in terms of ease of use and over-all fairness, but when actually placed against the previously existing spellcasting classes, it is game mechanically inferior.

DO you think the warlock is well balanced versus the non primary caster classes?

[User3]

Its a mistake to compare a warlock to a spellcaster. Its not one.

A Warlock is an "ability user" on par with a rogue.

The rogue specializes on massive sneak damage, spotting and searching, hiding, and all-round trap and lock breaker.

The Warlock is a "mage and magic" killer, movement specialist, combat tactician, untyped magic damage user, status condition inflictor, and magic trap neutralizer.

They share the roles of party face, scout, magic item user, mithral breastplated (and mithral shield using) light combatant, and overall "dip for a few cool things" classes.

Both have an implied stat (Dex and Cha, respectively), and both actually should have Int as their highest stat. Both rely heavily on magic items to cover their weaknesses. Both have abilities that only work well in light armor.

The warlock is potentially more powerful than the Rogue, except for the fact that the Warlock has the Sorcerer problem in that a poor player will not pick abilities that complement each other and solidify the character's role. A poorly chosen mish-mash of abilities will dilute the character's ability to perform a set role.

[Username17]

That's a somewhat accurate assessment. Personally, I think the Rogue is a lot better than the Warlock.

The Warlock's untyped magical damage can hurt just about anything. But it doesn't hit very hard. If the Warlock is the only character in your team who can hurt your enemy, you still lose because the Warlock doesn't hand out damage fast enough to actually make the party win.

The Warlock only gets 2 base skill points, which makes him not the face.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1120289161[/unixtime]]
Both have an implied stat (Dex and Cha, respectively), and both actually should have Int as their highest stat.

I don't think I've ever bought into this principle. Skills are perhaps the weakest area of the game, so I fail to see why maxing out on skill points is all that great an idea.

Rogues can generally afford to get all the good skills on their starting points and a modest bonus to int, like a 12. I have never seen any reason to max out int as a rogue.

While I've never played a warlock before, he doesn't really seem all that different. Aside from maxing use magic device, he doesn't seem to have a heck of a lot of skills that I'd really care about.

[Murtak]

I don't think I've ever bought into this principle. Skills are perhaps the weakest area of the game

I don't know about that. Skills are just as useless and just as broken as feats and spells. Diplomacy and use magic device don't look out of place next to polymorph, teleport, kharmic strike and exalted wildshape.

As for the warlock, I like the ceoncept, but not the execution. Still, it is a step forward as far as caster redesign is concerned.

[Neeek]

Really? I like the execution, though it would be nice if they got somethings at lower levels than they do, and if they got more invocations(really, less than 1 a level is just silly. Same with the Wilder and Fighter. 1 new trick a level sounds like a good minimum to me). Hate the fluff they give it, and don't understand the "evil or chaotic" requirement reasoning.

[User3]

The Warlock's untyped magical damage can hurt just about anything. But it doesn't hit very hard. If the Warlock is the only character in your team who can hurt your enemy, you still lose because the Warlock doesn't hand out damage fast enough to actually make the party win.

The Warlock has enough extra tricks to make doing large stacks of damage unimportant. As combat tactician, they can tie up an enemy long enough that the blasts will wear down the enemy. Additionally, most of the "immune to everything good" enemies have low HPs anyway. Lots of damage is rarely necessary.

Also, if you are fighting an enemy where only one party member can hurt it at all, you are already fvcked. Single players can get knocked out of the action pretty easily, so encounters like this are TPK traps that prove that either your DM hates you or he is a Gygaxian ass pirate.

The Warlock only gets 2 base skill points, which makes him not the face.

The Warlock has only a small list of important skills, since he is not a spellcaster. Those skills are: Concentration, Intimidate, Bluff, Sense Motive, and Use Magic Device. To max these out he needs an Int of 16 or be a Human and have an Int of 14. Disguise is nice, but only as a dump for extra skill points. Skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge(Arcana or Planes) are covered by the party spellcasters.

Add in that he has a decent Cha and the Least Invocation that adds a +6 to Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy, a focused "party face" can be built out of a Warlock with only a minimal investment.

Also, add in that he can go Mindbender and get Diplomacy as a class skill and rack up even bigger "face" bonuses while pursuing a different but good "ability user" power progression.

Like a Rogue, the Warlock has to chose to be the "party face" and build his character accordingly.

[fbmf]

Thanks, K. I was overdue for a sig change.

Game On,
fbmf

[Neeek]

1120332639[/unixtime]]
Add in that he has a decent Cha and the Least Invocation that adds a +6 to Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy, a focused "party face" can be built out of a Warlock with only a minimal investment.

I dunno how "minimal" the investment of an invocation is.

[Murtak]

As for the warlock, I like the ceoncept, but not the execution. Still, it is a step forward as far as caster redesign is concerned.

Really? I like the execution, though it would be nice if they got somethings at lower levels than they do, and if they got more invocations

I would like the class a lot more if it's tricks scaled better. As is it has the same multiclassing problems the primary casters have. Instead of all the least, lesser and so on invocations they could have given all the invocations minimum caster levels, set caster level to character level and allowed you to change invocations known with, say, a day-long ritual.

The appropriate power level is a subjective thing, given the variety of classes out there. As long as a new class does not push the upper (druid, cleric, artificer) or lower (fighter types) boundaries I don't really mind. I would have liked more invocations to choose from, but I guess you don't get that with a new class.

A new invocation (or true class feature) every level would have been nice too. Also a lot of the warlock's "at will" abilities really are not because they are already long term or self only. For example the invisibility at will - would it have hurt that much to have it be "any cast dispels the previous one" instead of self only?

On top of that you get weird needless rulings like "you can't make the eldritch blast a supernatural ability because a spell-like ability is not innate".

The class is full of these little things which would make it much more fun and viable. The power level difference I can deal with. Warlocks and clerics are not harder to get to work than fighters and clerics are. Any of the little issues I can deal with. But just-as-crappy multieclassing on top of weird rulings on top of too few invocations on top of too limited invocations on top of ...

Well, you get the picture. The warlock could be a great class with a metric crapton of tiny fixes. Unfortunately that takes a lot of effort, so right now it is rather mediocre. But I can applaud the designer(s) for a big step in the right direction I guess. Maybe the next incarnation of the class will work well enough to become the new model for casters. Until then I will file this one under "nice try".

[RandomCasualty]

1120329766[/unixtime]]
I don't know about that. Skills are just as useless and just as broken as feats and spells. Diplomacy and use magic device don't look out of place next to polymorph, teleport, kharmic strike and exalted wildshape.

The thing is that generally you only need a couple skills so having a lot of skill by maxing your int isn't all that great. since there are maybe 4-5 realy powerful skills and the rest suck.

And most skills like diplomacy depend so heavily on DM interpretation that they aren't really all that great.

[Murtak]

The thing is that generally you only need a couple skills so having a lot of skill by maxing your int isn't all that great. since there are maybe 4-5 realy powerful skills and the rest suck.

That is quite a different thing from "Skills are perhaps the weakest area of the game" however.

And most skills like diplomacy depend so heavily on DM interpretation that they aren't really all that great.

You mean to say: diplomacy is overpowered to the point of brokenness as written, but unlike polymorphing and cleric buffing DMs feel justified in nerfing it "because it is just a skill"?

Because I don't actually recall all that much vagueness in the description of diplomacy.

[Josh_Kablack]

1120332639[/unixtime]]
Also, add in that he can go Mindbender and get Diplomacy as a class skill and rack up even bigger "face" bonuses while pursuing a different but good "ability user" power progression.

Wait. you're seriously saying that picking up levels (plural) in Mindbender is superior to continuing as a Warlock ?

Mindbender Level 1 gives your warlock telepathy and +1 caster level - which is decent.

Mindbender Level 2 gives your warlock a limited Suggestion 1/day and +1 competence to Bluff, Diplomancy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, but no caster level. Which sucks less for a Warlock than for a Wizard, but still sucks so bad as to be not worth taking the level. Congrats, at Mindbender 2 you just traded a gimped Fly at will for a gimped Suggestion ONCE PER DAY. This is good how?

If we go further up in Mindbender Levels, we get delayed on getting to the juicy Greater Invocations while getting rewarded with stuff which actually doesn't help us at all, like getting Eternal Charm 1/day, when we ALREADY HAVE THE CHARM INVOCATION TO GET INTO THE CLASS; or like getting Enchantment Spell Power to keep your Mindbender just behind the caster level of a single classed wizard, except that WARLOCKS DON'T CAST SPELLS, SO WE GET NOTHING.

So in short, going Mindbender means you give up less than a wizard would, in order to get less than a wizard would in a PrC that still sucks worse than just taking levels in your original class.

[RandomCasualty]

1120343078[/unixtime]]

You mean to say: diplomacy is overpowered to the point of brokenness as written, but unlike polymorphing and cleric buffing DMs feel justified in nerfing it "because it is just a skill"?

Well, it's one of those things that's broken to the point of total game destruction if you play it by the rules literal interpretation. Therefore nobody does.

An ability that makes the game fall apart actually might as well not be there at all, because one of two things happen when you use it in a game breaking way.

-The DM just ends it since he can no longer run a meaningful game.
-The DM reinterprets or nerfs the ability.

There is actually no case where you get to actually use the ability. So it might as well not even be there.

The main reinterpretation of diplomacy is that main NPCs have social skill immunity just like PCs do.

Diplomacy is one of those things that you can basically assume isn't being played with a 100% literal interpretation. Because if it isn't at the start of the campaign, it will be as soon as the DM figures out about it.

But as far as I'm concerned, I think having social skills in an RPG is a dumb idea anyway. Just having the skills is pretty much an open door to forcing the DM to nerf them.

[Modesitt]

You mean to say: diplomacy is overpowered to the point of brokenness as written, but unlike polymorphing and cleric buffing DMs feel justified in nerfing it "because it is just a skill"?

I don't think "GM Interpretation" is the right phrase. "GM Style" would be better.

One, when I've tried the Diplomacy Monkey on GMs they sometimes Just Say No. Being so persuasive you convince a guy who was trying to kill you 6 seconds ago to be your friend? That breaks their view of what non-magic should be able to do. This all comes back to the common belief that it's OK for a caster with invisibility to be better at hiding than a rogue will ever be because his is magic and the rogues' skills are not.

Two, a number of GMs don't use the diplomacy rules at all. They roleplay out all social encounters. This is good if your char has an insignificant diplomacy skill but you have a significant one. This is bad if your char has a significant diplomacy skill and you don't. This particular problem has plagued pretty much every game I've ever been in. In my experience about a quarter of D&D GMs run social encounters with little or no die rolling. I've found it's much more common among experienced and older GMs than younger or inexperienced GMs.

As an aside, I've found that GMs are much less likely to run social encounters dicelessly if there are no Face-type characters in the group. So bards not only add nothing to groups, but they also subtract from them.

[Neeek]

Looking over the invocations list, I have to ask a few questions.

1) Was it really necessary to make both Devil's Sight and See the Unseen? These two abilities couldn't just be one invocation?

2) Similar complaint about Miasmic Cloud and Breath of Night.

3) Clearly, making a Warlock at a high level and playing a Warlock to a high level will give you two different characters, with the played one getting the shaft. There are plenty of invocations that are just plain better versions of earlier invocations. If you take Voidsense for example, why would you ever want Devil's Sight or See the Unseen?

[Wrenfield]

Warlocks, from a combat standpoint, should be like Bards. A nice 5th party member to compliment the Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and Barbarian.

Eldritch Blast-wise .. I tend to like the Eldritch Chained Vitriolic Blast combo, for maximum effect to multiple foes. 3 straight rounds of hitting with one of these in addition to the "echo" damage effect, can lead to some decent aggregate damage. And it ignores SR. And you need these Essence Invocations to ramp up your caster level equivalent. Else you have issues with Globes of Invulneratbility and stuff like that.

But again, it needs to be chosen with some knowledge of the campaign's parameters.

Say, wasn't there something noted about Noxious Blast and the "nauseated" effect on creatures you would think are immune to it - but actually aren't?

========

Last, Chilling Tentacles is just downright amazing. A Warlock with Improved Initiative and a high Dex should be popping one of these off damn near the beginning of every battle.

[Username17]

Say, wasn't there something noted about Noxious Blast and the "nauseated" effect on creatures you would think are immune to it - but actually aren't?

Yes. The reason that undead and constructs are immune to the nauseation effects from the player's handbook is that all such effects are either poison, or are effects that affect only creatures (and not objects). There is

Eldritch Blasts are not poison and affect objects just fine.

Constructs are immune to poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, necromantic effects, mind-affecting spells and abilities (a statement which just barely doesn't cover continuous mind-affecting properties of magic items, btw), critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, energy drain, massive damage, or any effect that requires a fort save and does not work on objects and isn't "harmless".

That's a big list, but the Nauseated condition isn't actually on it, so if an effect causes that condition and doesn't fit any of the rest of that generous criteria, it works on clockwork horrors.

-Username17

[User3]

If we go further up in Mindbender Levels, we get delayed on getting to the juicy Greater Invocations while getting rewarded with stuff which actually doesn't help us at all, like getting Eternal Charm 1/day, when we ALREADY HAVE THE CHARM INVOCATION TO GET INTO THE CLASS; or like getting Enchantment Spell Power to keep your Mindbender just behind the caster level of a single classed wizard, except that WARLOCKS DON'T CAST SPELLS, SO WE GET NOTHING.

Hey Mister Ranty McRantpants, you do realize that Eternal Charm means that you have hopped off the whole level-based power mechanic and now walk around town with the BBEG from the last adventure? How's that for a class feature?

You get a whole new character (which can be switched out), and you get to use of all his/her/its abilities by making a check you are really good at. Hell, you could just get a high level Warlock and have him use all those big Invocations if you really miss them so much. You have to avoid Protection From spells and Dispels, but few monsters have either so you just tell your special friend to go home in those situations.

I mean, regular Charm is worse that Eternal Charm because:
a. It ends; not a problem with ET.
b. You aren't good at the Cha check; you are a Warlock, so thats solved.
c. You can't talk to all the good stuff; Mindbenders get Telepathy.

Where is this bad?

[Josh_Kablack]

Hey Mister Ranty McRantpants, you do realize that Eternal Charm means that you have hopped off the whole level-based power mechanic and now walk around town with the BBEG from the last adventure? How's that for a class feature?

It's quite decent, but it is accomplished far more effectively by having Charm Monster, Suggestion, and other enchantment spells. Honestly, the warlock is better served by using Deceive Item to accomplish this than he is by losing caster levels and invocations to do so.

I mean, regular Charm is worse that Eternal Charm because:
a. It ends; not a problem with ET.

You know, I've never, not even once, seen the duration of Charm Monster expire on a target who was still alive. This is probably due to the fact that Charm Monster lasts a minimum of seven days and if you can cast it, you get to do so at least once/day, and likely at least twice that if you really want to.

On the flip side, I have seen characters attempt to have multiple Charmed minions on the board.

I have also seen characters attempt to charm Huge or larger creatures.

b. You aren't good at the Cha check; you are a Warlock, so thats solved.

Okay, the warlock being Cha-based synergizes well with Charm spells.

I never said that it didn't.

I said that Eternal Charm is worse than Charm Monster as an ability to add on to your existing character; and I also said that Mindbender levels 2+ are worse as levels to add on to your existing character than more levels in the core class you used to have.

c. You can't talk to all the good stuff; Mindbenders get Telepathy.

And I have now noted multiple times that the level of Mindbender which grants telepathy is completely worth taking.

Where is this bad?

Because you get better abilities by staying in straight Warlock.