It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I don't know why an infernal lock would bother with chain, but a star pact might want to go con and cha (for the largest variety of powers), which leaves him with no way to pump int. In that case, he would want chain.
This remark from the "Barbarian is up" thread made me think. Should there be some way of helping Starlock balance their AC to the same level that other Warlocks have? Perhaps something like this:
Feat:
Quote:
Otherworldly Resilience
Prerequisites: Warlocks, Con 16 Cha 16
Warlock gains +1 AC & Ref per Tier (untyped bonus) as long as they are in light armour.
Warlocks cannot gain more then +3 bonus to their AC and Ref from their Int and Dex modifiers.
This feat (while really focussed on Starlocks) gives warlocks a chance to use more of their powers while not having to worry about their armour.
It is balanced because:
It gives less AC then they would have had if they boosted Int as much as they could.
Having less Int is its own punishment, some Warlock powers become less powerful
It allows them to use ALL of their powers just like the other strikers can
I also like this feat because it allows for more Warlock builds then "(Con or Cha) + Int"
If a Starlock takes less than 16 INT (after racials), he deserves to get smacked. 16 INT plus Leather Armor + Shadow Walk concealment means that you are typically at 15 AC and melee/ranged attacks (which tend to be what hits AC anyway) are at -2 to hit, so effectively 17 AC. That's as much as an Archer Ranger with 18 DEX and hide, more than a Wizard (even with Leather, unless they're a staff wizard), and more than a rogue unless the Rogue is hiding, which OK, I'll concede that happens all the time.
Alternatively, the Warlock could take 13 STR and blow a feat on Chain since he certainly has the 13 CON. He could even just take 12 STR and wait for Paragon, if he's intending never to boost INT, he won't fall that far behind before level 8.
Remember, you're not forced to take powers that tie into your pact, if there's a power you like better from another pact... the pact bonus often doesn't matter that much.
I'll give you that the feat is a nice idea to allow paths that don't focus on INT--although I'm still not sure that's even a good idea, but it actually leaves you falling behind at the end of Epic (or beginning of Epic if Demigod), when you should be getting +8 (+9 @ end w/Demigod) from ability modifier, and you're at best getting +6 (+3 from feat, +3 INT or DEX). Chain will wind up serving you better in that case.
True, I don't believe the feat is recommended, but it does open doors and I think the new system needs that. And while I agree that you can use powers from outside of your pact this would allow Fey and infernal locks to explore the other powers as well.
I'm thinking of removing the limitation on how much AC and Ref you can get from the feat but it would make the feat far too attractive for Half Elves who would find it very easy to stack this bonus with keeping their intellect high.
Although I must admit I forgot Shadow Walk, I do think that the Arcane lasses deal uniform the least amount of damage and "need some love"
I think your feat gets the job done. Maybe not the way I'd do it, but it gets the job done.
Its a little clunky mathematically. Let me see if I can think up something that takes less thinking.
...
...
A warlock with a 14 Int will have an acceptable AC if he pumps Int. If he doesn't, he falls behind by 3 over the course of his career. He won't fall behind at all until level 8.
So... what about a paragon tier feat that boosts AC and which has prereqs that will be essentially unattainable for a star pact warlock who chooses to pump Int instead of pumping both Con and Cha?
Sideways Paths
Paragon
Prereqs: Star Pact Warlock, Con 19, Cha 19
When you gain concealment due to your Shadow Walk class feature, you gain +4 to all defenses instead of +2. At level 21, you gain +5 instead.
I really like this option.
Con and Cha of 19 are close to unattainable at the paragon tier without putting some of your discretionary points into both stats. Even a half elf would have to buy 16s in both stats, costing him 20 of his initial points and sticking him with an Int bonus of 12. He could do it more easily if he waited for this feat until epic, but that's probably fine.
Making it a paragon feat handles the timing issue pretty well. The curve isn't quite as smooth, but it should be smooth enough. Its a little frontloaded at the paragon tier, but who cares.
Best of all, its elegant to tie it to an existing class feature.
The biggest danger is that players will see it and not understand that it patches the AC issue and opens up a dual-path star pact warlock option. They'll think its just some fancy benefit. So they'll take it and continue to whine anyways about not having a free AC bonus to fix the fact that they're not pumping Int.
My whole position on Starlock is that I think they made a bad design decision of making a class feature they thought might be too good conditionally (Fate of the Void) and so they forced a straight Starlock build to split their point buy between two primary attack / damage stats as a balancing measure. True, there's nothing stopping one from taking powers from another pact, but it stands to reason that some people pick Starlock because - shock of shocks - they want the Starlock powers. If the ability's too good, don't nerf the class, just make that one ability less good. And never - NEVER - impose a restriction on a build option that affects the character all the time to balance an ability that is only too good conditionally. That's just silly.
They should have simply imposed a limitation on FotV and made Starlocks a single primary attack / damage stat path like Hell-locks and Feylocks. Why force someone to do contortions to meet a build concept because you feel one feature could be too good in certain circumstances, when you can simply make that one thing more limited? For instance, limit how the bonus stacks per tier (+1 per die roll per tier, or +2 per die roll per tier with Improved FotV, forcing the player to split up any bonuses between multiple rolls if more than one cursed foe is dropped in heroic, or two in paragon, or three in epic) instead of leaving it so you can apply the bonus for however many cursed foes you can drop in a round to a single die roll, and make Starlocks single stat warlocks like the others. Seems simple to me.
That said, something like your feat would be helpful. But then the warlock is burning a feat to help address what I see as a design flaw, when they've already had to split their point buy up between two primary stats, throwing good after bad. I like creating Starlock characters because of the concept... it was one of the big things I wanted to do first when I got 4e. But when I compare them to other builds I wouldn't want to actually play one. And if I build a starlock and take fey or hell powers to work around it, I feel I might as well just play a fey or hell warlock.
I'd honestly prefer some sort of revision or customization option in the Arcane Power book to the Star Pact as a whole over forcing a character to burn a feat to "fix" their AC, when that pure Star Pact character is already weakened by focusing on two prime stats when the other pacts only need one.
Last edited by Cryptos; 9th October 2008 at 07:28 AM..
Just wait for the arcane power book. Starlocks make really good cha-only locks with just the new powers from the dragon (also official and in the DDI).
If you choose not to choose between the other paths (cha or Con) (and took only 14 Int) just get the armor proficiency.
Starlocks are not more nerfed than clerics or paladins.
__________________
Signature
Hi I'm a comic and rpg nerd. Don't hurt me, please.
Starlocks have it tough, it's hard to commit to ignore CON (which powers Dire Radiance - it's hard to write off an at-will at any level) or CHA (which powers your PP powers) - but, if you don't, you skimp on INT and your AC suffers.
Taking a modest INT, not buying it up and going to heavy armor for defense works, but it's a little wierd, and leaves the secondary effects of some of your powers clearlly inferior to high-INT warlocks.
OTOH, if you /do/ boost both CON & CHA, you have good hps, good FORT & WILL, /and/ can cherry-pick the best warlock power of each level, while also getting the most out of your at-wills and PPs.
My whole position on Starlock is that I think they made a bad design decision of making a class feature they thought might be too good conditionally (Fate of the Void) and so they forced a straight Starlock build to split their point buy between two primary attack / damage stats as a balancing measure. True, there's nothing stopping one from taking powers from another pact, but it stands to reason that some people pick Starlock because - shock of shocks - they want the Starlock powers. If the ability's too good, don't nerf the class, just make that one ability less good. And never - NEVER - impose a restriction on a build option that affects the character all the time to balance an ability that is only too good conditionally. That's just silly.
They should have simply imposed a limitation on FotV and made Starlocks a single primary attack / damage stat path like Hell-locks and Feylocks. Why force someone to do contortions to meet a build concept because you feel one feature could be too good in certain circumstances, when you can simply make that one thing more limited? For instance, limit how the bonus stacks per tier (+1 per die roll per tier, or +2 per die roll per tier with Improved FotV, forcing the player to split up any bonuses between multiple rolls if more than one cursed foe is dropped in heroic, or two in paragon, or three in epic) instead of leaving it so you can apply the bonus for however many cursed foes you can drop in a round to a single die roll, and make Starlocks single stat warlocks like the others. Seems simple to me.
That said, something like your feat would be helpful. But then the warlock is burning a feat to help address what I see as a design flaw, when they've already had to split their point buy up between two primary stats, throwing good after bad. I like creating Starlock characters because of the concept... it was one of the big things I wanted to do first when I got 4e. But when I compare them to other builds I wouldn't want to actually play one. And if I build a starlock and take fey or hell powers to work around it, I feel I might as well just play a fey or hell warlock.
I'd honestly prefer some sort of revision or customization option in the Arcane Power book to the Star Pact as a whole over forcing a character to burn a feat to "fix" their AC, when that pure Star Pact character is already weakened by focusing on two prime stats when the other pacts only need one.
Why didn't they make them a single-stat path? Because Warlocks can take powers from all paths, and they wanted to keep the choice between Cha and Con even. If they made Star either all Cha or all Con, there would be twice as many powers of that stat, making it a no-brainer for Warlocks to focus on that stat over the other.
Alternately, they could have chosen a 3rd stat, such as Int, to be the base of all their powers. That would have made crossing over and gaining other powers even tougher for warlocks though, as they'd now have to boost 3 stats instead of 2 to have access to the full range of powers. And in the future, when creating new paths, wouldn't each of them need a new stat to keep things balanced? But there are only 6 stats...
I think it works out fine as it is, overall. There are benefits and drawbacks to choosing Int or Cha/Con.
Star 'locks have a fantastic pact boon, the best pact boon booster feat, and some of the best pact augmentations in their class.
Going strictly Cha or Con is 100% viable, and I don't see any need to reward people for gimping themselves by trying to power-game and get both.
Cheers, -- N
I agree wth the first sentence.
About the viability of going strictly Cha or Con, and the power gameyness of going for both? There are three issues.
1. The star pact at will uses Con, and not Cha. This dissuades you from using Cha as your primary attack score. It doesn't stop you, but it does kind of suck for you if you try it.
2. Limited paragon paths. If you do go Con, what paragon path are you going to use?
3. You can't use your pact for all of your powers. This isn't necessarily a negative, but other pacts don't have this problem. The only way to use your pact for all of your powers is to go Con/Cha, but if you do, you'll run into AC problems, and your powers that receives bonuses from your Int won't receive very big bonuses because you'll be too busy pumping your dual attack stats.
I would kind of like to see these fixed in some way.
Why didn't they make them a single-stat path? Because Warlocks can take powers from all paths, and they wanted to keep the choice between Cha and Con even. If they made Star either all Cha or all Con, there would be twice as many powers of that stat, making it a no-brainer for Warlocks to focus on that stat over the other.
Alternately, they could have chosen a 3rd stat, such as Int, to be the base of all their powers. That would have made crossing over and gaining other powers even tougher for warlocks though, as they'd now have to boost 3 stats instead of 2 to have access to the full range of powers. And in the future, when creating new paths, wouldn't each of them need a new stat to keep things balanced? But there are only 6 stats...
I think it works out fine as it is, overall. There are benefits and drawbacks to choosing Int or Cha/Con.
It's not like they didn't know Dark Pact was coming. It must have at least been in the planning stages to some degree prior to the PHBI coming out. That makes four pacts, two for CHA and two for CON.
It's also not like there aren't already classes with an uneven number of powers per stat (although admittedly not 2:1) in the PHBI, and it's always been a given that more powers would be offered in the power source books and other sources.
The split can't be simply a desire to keep available warlock powers at a 50/50 split, anyway... if that were the design goal, why not make all pacts 50% Con and 50% Cha instead of singling out one pact? If that were the case, they also would have offered a choice for the new star pact powers presented in Dragon to keep it 50/50 instead of keeping the primary stat for each power at each level roughly the same as the powers in the PHBI. If that were the case, Dark Pact would be similarly split, they'd have a CHA at-will and CON encounter powers, but just looking at the excerpt online it's not that way.
It was a balancing decision that has the net effect of limiting one pact, and the default style of building Star Pact Warlocks (pure Starlock) all the time for a benefit that is only conditional (Fate of the Void.) That's a bad design philosophy in my opinion. You simply don't limit a class all the time because a conditional ability is too good... if balance is your goal, change that one ability so it isn't quite so good.
And no one has suggested making third, fourth, fifth, and sixth primary stats for Warlocks (at least until you did.)
The benefits and drawbacks for choosing attributes are much, much clearer for the other pacts (they don't have to sacrifice effectiveness with any of their own pact's powers by chosing one stat), and those benefits and drawbacks in the RAW are not evenly applied for each pact.
It's okay to say that they made a mistake, and it isn't necessary to defend every decision they made in order to defend this edition. Out of 100s of rules and mechanics presented in the PHB, it's bound to happen. It's not like we're saying 4e is a bad product overall. As 4e design flaws go, though, I would say this is one of the bigger ones.
Last edited by Cryptos; 12th October 2008 at 09:30 PM..
About the viability of going strictly Cha or Con, and the power gameyness of going for both? There are three issues.
1. The star pact at will uses Con, and not Cha. This dissuades you from using Cha as your primary attack score. It doesn't stop you, but it does kind of suck for you if you try it.
2. Limited paragon paths. If you do go Con, what paragon path are you going to use?
3. You can't use your pact for all of your powers. This isn't necessarily a negative, but other pacts don't have this problem. The only way to use your pact for all of your powers is to go Con/Cha, but if you do, you'll run into AC problems, and your powers that receives bonuses from your Int won't receive very big bonuses because you'll be too busy pumping your dual attack stats.
I would kind of like to see these fixed in some way.
1. Retraining is the best option here. Take Eyebite or Spiteful Glamour instead.
2. Second Pact to Infernal and use that, I suppose. Alternatively, check with your DM about making one of the pacts use Con. It is annoying that both are Cha-only, I agree.
3. True, but whatcha going to do? The Star Pact is cool enough that you don't need pact bonuses all the time.
With a bit of DM co-operation, Star pact'ers ought to easily be able to use either stat.
1. The star pact at will uses Con, and not Cha. This dissuades you from using Cha as your primary attack score. It doesn't stop you, but it does kind of suck for you if you try it.
Yeah. That is kinda lame for non-Humans. Human Starlocks, however, get Eyebite, arguably the best Warlock at-will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
2. Limited paragon paths. If you do go Con, what paragon path are you going to use?
I expect Dragon to compensate for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
3. You can't use your pact for all of your powers. This isn't necessarily a negative, but other pacts don't have this problem.
This is compensated by having some of the best pact augmentations. In other words, you get fewer, but better, and IMHO that balances reasonably well. Jugement call here, so we can disagree without acrimony.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Also Starlocks have -autohit- powers within their perview as well.
They made three pacts for two builds. In their mind, scourging is the damager, deceptive is the one with tricks. To exemplar scourging they made Infernal, to exemplar deceptive they made Fey and for those who like the middle ground they made Star.
Star is similiar to the Staff of Defense, it's good for either kind of warlock and you have to pick and choose accordingly. You'll end up likely borrowing from other pacts, and that's inherent of the design of the warlock class itself. You can have bampowersmack, tricks, or defenses. Pick two.
Linear Mode
