Proposal: Warlock At-Wills

Atanatotatos · Jul 16, 2009

Losing eldritch blast means in my experience 95% of the time you deal JUST a d6 vs a d10.

...and you're not a target in return. That's the tradeoff. Either more damage, ore more survivability. Sounds fine to me.

elecgraystone · Jul 16, 2009

Atanatotatos said:
...and you're not a target in return.

No. If you are DAMAGED, big difference. If we changed it to 'targeted before your next turn' is might be slightly more useful. This is what happens for me.

#1 it does d6 damage. move to next round.
#2 I'm in melee. If it deals a d6 damage I get free damage from a OA. Still have to wait to see in extra damage kicks in. If I'm 'lucky' I take double damage and he gets an extra d6.
#3 it does d6 damage and I have to go out of my way to provoke attack. Either I'm missed and get no extra damage or I'm hit and take more than I deal in extra damage.

In #1-#3 there was no reason to use it instead of Eldritch blast. So it sits unused in my sheet. Unlike all the other at wills, for me it's NEVER a better option, in ANY situation, to use it instead of Eldritch blast. As I said before, I'd spent a feat to swap to another warlock at will. I hate having this useless 'vestigial limb' taking up space.

The reason for the proposal is really a secondary concern though. You agreed with covaithe saying 'I just really dislike messing with the basic mechanism of the class like this' right? But didn't we already do that by including the new at will? I'm just asking for it to be expanded to include replacing either of your starting at wills. Either way changes the basic mechanism of the class. And the patron HAS the at wills to give. I just can't believe every infernal pact is a carbon copy of each other.

I hope you don't mind my debating you a bit since you just showed up. I just want to be sure I understand why you said no. Is it JUST because it alters the mechanics? I don't see anything mechanically unbalancing with this and I don't see fluff getting in the way.

If it's just mechanics, don't we alter, change and ban those in every proposal? Granted it's normally to change the unbalanced to balanced, but is that a reason block a proposal that's balanced?

let me post something from covaithe since you seem to agree with him on changing mechanics and it's about mechanics. it's from the 'Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats' proposal thread.

Atanatotatos said:
I confess I don't understand why WotC have used the Multiclass keyword on feats so much. I don't understand why, say, having some spellscar powers, bought with feats as usual, would prevent you from being able to learn to use a whip in combat. Maybe it was originally for balance because most of the feats in the PHB sucked, but in practice I think there are enough good feats out there now that spending a lot of feats for power swaps is just not that big a problem. I dunno, maybe I'm missing something.

I'm strongly tempted just to vote yes on the original proposal and stop thinking about it. Can someone give me a concrete example of an overpowered build that would be made possible if we did this?

This is altering the mechanics because you 'don't understand why WotC' did something. I don't understand why a warlock can't replace his pact at will. No one has shown me 'a concrete example of an overpowered build that would be made possible if we did this'. No one has said why it makes sense from a mechanical standpoint and WotC themselves has said they don't give a flying 'fudge' about the fluff. Is it just because it's about feats instead of a class? that doesn't make much sense to me.

JoeNotCharles · Jul 17, 2009

After seeing how strongly elecgraystone feels about this, I sympathize. Normally I'm not swayed by, "I really really really want this for my character," because there are other options. In this case, though, the problem is a forced choice, and being forced to make a choice you don't want just isn't fun.

So, YES to allowing all warlocks to pick any 2 of Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Strike and their pact power. (In fact, YES to allowing Warlocks to pick any 2 at-wills, regardless of pact, just like other classes.)

elecgraystone · Jul 18, 2009

Thanks JoeNotCharles. I acknowledge it's a pet peeve of mine. It irks me so!

And I hope you don't think I was badgering you in my last post Atanatotatos. If this proposal doesn't pass I just wanted to know exactly what it was that made you vote no so I'd know for my next proposal. I rather make a proposal everyone says yes to.

Dunamin · Jul 19, 2009

Wow, this one is a pretty tough cookie.

I’m generally very disinclined to alter a fundamental class mechanism like this, so my initial reaction is to vote no.
As shocking as this may sound, I don’t find Hellish Rebuke horrible, either. I’ve had tons of fun playing an infernal warlock as is, and found my at-will powers equally useful. Considering that they’re Con-based and receive temp hp from their pact boon, the infernal build would seem to have the best staying power among warlocks which made Hellish Rebuke feel just right to me.

On the other hand, I do find the warlock at-will restriction a bit unnecessary, when seen in relation to other Player’s Handbook classes.
I also seem to recall discussion of how warlocks generally are a bit “mechanically inferior” compared to other strikers, so perhaps this measure of added flexibility could offset that somewhat.

I’m still undecided, so I’ll hold onto my vote and give it some more thought. Just wanted to throw some personal pondering into the mix, even if it may be reiteration of previous comments.

Will probably vote within the next 36 hours or so, though, to potentially affect the current outcome.

elecgraystone · Jul 19, 2009

Dunamin said:
As shocking as this may sound, I don’t find Hellish Rebuke horrible, either.

No, not shocking at all. I've had people that like it. It seem strange to me, but to each his own.

Dunamin said:
I’ve had tons of fun playing an infernal warlock as is, and found my at-will powers equally useful. Considering that they’re Con-based and receive temp hp from their pact boon, the infernal build would seem to have the best staying power among warlocks which made Hellish Rebuke feel just right to me.

I LOVE my infernal warlock. My experience with Hellish Rebuke is quite the opposite from your it seems. I put it in the same category as careful strike vs twin strike. It's almost never better [IMO] to use [or take] careful strike when you can use [or take] twin strike. Same with Hellish rebuke vs Edritch Blast. At least the ranger gets no NOT pick careful strike.

Dunamin said:
On the other hand, I do find the warlock at-will restriction a bit unnecessary, when seen in relation to other Player’s Handbook classes.

This is the real crux of my argument. I can't see the reason for it. As you said, if anything the warlock is a bit on the weak side for a striker. It didn't need the handicap. I may be all alone in HATING Hellish Rebuke but if I'd have played any other class I could pick and choose what i liked. It's quite irksome.

Dunamin said:
I’m still undecided, so I’ll hold onto my vote and give it some more thought.

Okie dokie! Thanks for the input and consideration.

elecgraystone · Jul 20, 2009

JoeNotCharles said:
So, YES to allowing all warlocks to pick any 2 of Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Strike and their pact power.

Well if I'm not mistaken, this technically passed 48hours after this post, or 6:50PM on the 19th.

However, since this happened when the site was down, what is the protocol? Does it still pass. Do we give a grace period after the site is back up? I don't want to jump the gun, but as soon as this is decided, I can finish updating my character from 2nd to third.

Oh and what happens if Dunamin comes later and votes no? That changes this from a pass to a push but do votes after a pass count [if this IS a pass]. This is annoyingly complicated.

Of course this'll be very simple if Dunamin wants to vote yes.

Dunamin · Jul 20, 2009

This is a serious problem in regards to L4W procedure. The outcome of a proposal should not be decided on a "well-timed" crash of EN World for 2 days or so (as has just happened).

Since I'm already on the fence about this proposal and to prevent potential fuss, I'm voting YES.

I'll put forth a separate proposal in a little while, however, to adress this issue so that it doesn't happen again.

elecgraystone · Jul 20, 2009

Dunamin said:
Since I'm already on the fence about this proposal and to prevent potential fuss, I'm voting YES.

I could hug you right now!

Dunamin said:
This is a serious problem in regards to L4W procedure. The outcome of a proposal should not be decided on a "well-timed" crash of EN World for 2 days or so (as has just happened).

Agreed, especially since you'd already said you'd planned to vote before the 48hr deadline. It wouldn't have upset me if we'd have postponed the deadline till tomorrow. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like I was trying to 'slip' it in without your vote. I wasn't sure if anything like this had happened before. {I guess not}

Dunamin said:
I'll put forth a separate proposal in a little while, however, to address this issue so that it doesn't happen again.

Sounds good. I think a 24hr extension after the boards are up and running would be acceptable if a major shutdown happens during the 48hr countdown. That seems fair to both sides.

JoeNotCharles · Jul 21, 2009

So, if I'm not mistaken, we have 2 votes for not changing anything, 2 for allowing Warlocks to pick any 2 of Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Strike, and their pact at-will, 1 (mine) for either that or allowing any 2 powers, and 2 that just said "YES". Can Dunamin and Ozy clarify - what's that YES for? If it's for 2 of the 3, it's passed (5 to 2) - if it's for any 2, we're still deadlocked, since we only have 3 votes in favour and 2 against.