Playtest: Warlock Updates

[ourchair]

I read the update, but I don't have my PHB, Arcane Power and Dark Sun books -- and am therefore a bit behind with what the Warlock does now -- with me right now.

What got changed other than the 'standardization' of striker bonus damage into a per turn gimme rather than a per round gimme?

This is of import to me, because My Girlfriend DM plays mostly warlocks and I think she'd really appreciate knowing which options have been bumped for damage or made more viable?

 

[Colmarr]

This is of import to me, because My Girlfriend DM plays mostly warlocks and I think she'd really appreciate knowing which options have been bumped for damage or made more viable?

The last page of the article is a summary page, which among other things notes which powers have had their damage increased.

 

[Destil]

Also, it's just the playtest. They'd be stupid not to make at least a few changes before release (Dire Radiance being made Con or Cha is pretty much a universal response, for instance).

 

[Syunsuke]

Now i wander about Wish apon a star article of Dragon 366.
These powers should be updated or not ?

 

[Oldtimer]

What are other people's thoughts on the wide-spread removal of "Sustain Minor"? I agree with the article that Curse of the Bloody Fangs (Daily 5) was very confusing, but what was wrong with Curse of the Black Frost (Daily 9) or Summons of Khirad (Daily 9)? Both those had clear and functional mechanisms IMO.

 

[Ryujin]

What are other people's thoughts on the wide-spread removal of "Sustain Minor"? I agree with the article that Curse of the Bloody Fangs (Daily 5) was very confusing, but what was wrong with Curse of the Black Frost (Daily 9) or Summons of Khirad (Daily 9)? Both those had clear and functional mechanisms IMO.

I didn't find Bloody Fangs all that confusing but, given that it was CHA vs. AC until this revision, I didn't find it to be particularly effective.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Now i wander about Wish apon a star article of Dragon 366.
These powers should be updated or not ?

I can't think of any that would need it, but if this playtest became the next revision, I can see them working on powers from other sources.

Do you have any in mind?

 

[Ryujin]

I can't think of any that would need it, but if this playtest became the next revision, I can see them working on powers from other sources.

Do you have any in mind?

I would say that the INT powers should be switched to either CON or CHA. Those would be Fury of Gibbeth and Gibbeth's Embrace. Starlocks already have it bad enough, being split between CHA and CON, without having INT also thrown into the mix. The powers, that have an attribute + 2 to attacks vs. a NAD, should be reconsidered as overpowered.

 

[Oldtimer]

I didn't find Bloody Fangs all that confusing but, given that it was CHA vs. AC until this revision, I didn't find it to be particularly effective.

Yes, if effectiveness was really bad. The part I found confusing for my players was that it didn't have anything obviously sustainable on the Hit line, yet you could do Sustain Minor with it.

So any thoughts on the change? I think Summons of Khirad got very different from it.

 

[Ryujin]

Yes, if effectiveness was really bad. The part I found confusing for my players was that it didn't have anything obviously sustainable on the Hit line, yet you could do Sustain Minor with it.

So any thoughts on the change? I think Summons of Khirad got very different from it.

Summons of Khirad has certainly changed; it has become far more powerful! No line of sight or (presumably) line of effect for a teleport attack? YEESH! They've also altered the damage curve a fair bit.

The changes to Bloody Fangs remove the guaranteed damage every round, after a hit, but brings it in line with other "save ends" powers while also improving accuracy. It's now a power that I would consider taking, whereas with my old character I had it for a level, then immediately retrained it out at the next level.