Forked Thread: Twilight of the Warlocks

[Felon]

Forked from: Anyone care to allay my PHB2 concerns? posted a couple of weeks before the PHB2 came out.

So, going by my the much leaner info about the PHB2 that's available to non-DDI-subscribers (mostly reading the info secondhand in forums), I've got a few niggling concerns about the PHB2. If you've got the inside scoop, tell me how justified they are:

Concern #1: The Wizard gets outshined by the two new controllers, because their AoE's will tend to target "all enemies" while the wizard's mostly targets "all creatures". Avoiding friendly fire is a huge deal when dropping a nuke. Another consideration is that the druid and invoker are both likely tougher than the wiz. What's the wizard got to tip the scales even?

Concern #2: The Sorcerer basically amounts to unofficially giving up on the Warlock as the arcane striker. The 'lock's damage output is suffiicently behind the curve of other strikers that I fear the designers may have deemed it a lost cause.

Concern #3: The [W] damage discrepency holds strong, or even broadens. Weapon users will continue to have a sizable boost in damage output over implement users. At first, I'd hoped the absence of martial characters in PHB2 would lead to righting the imbalance. However, on reflection, the only thing in the PHB2 that would really make a dent would be feats that reclaim some of the ground lost to superior weapons and various other weapon-boosting feats, or perhaps that help overcome Resists. Or something I just hadn't thought of.

Looking forward to hearing "oh ye of little faith..."

So, now we've got both PHB2 and Arcane Power out. Concern #1 isn't any real issue as far as I can tell, while the topic of Concern #3 seems to be standing pat (with the overshadowing of implement damage by weapon damage being, by all available accounts, an intentional design choice).

Where do we stand in regards to Concern #2? I really don't see parity between warlocks and sorcerers, the two arcane strikers. The damage bonus sorcerers get from adding their Dex to damage rolls is pretty handily superior to the warlock's curse, and sorcerer powers tend to offer better damage dice to boot (it's somewhat elusive to quantify, but you'll find a lot more d10's in sorcerer powers than warlock powers).

Then we've got all the other isolated issues. The warlock's Eldritch Blast, for instance, is a non-optional dud. Compare that to Chaos Bolt. Sorcerers have a strong mix of close and ranged attacks, and have a feat to make all of their ranged attacks melee attacks.

Sorcerers seem a little more frail, with only cloth armor proficiency, but that's ameliorated with a feat. A Con-based warlock will be a good bit tougher, granted. Sorcerers started out with pretty mediocre utility powers, but Arcane Power ratcheted them up a bit.

Arcane Power was basically the last good shot at doing some rebalancing, so now it feels like a window of opportunity has closed. I really wonder what the designers thoughts are with the warlock class. it's a striker that doesn't pack a lot of strike.

 

[Dice4Hire]

So far, I think WOTC has done an excellent job of making each striker different, and still viable. (Many would and probably will argue this, though) Going with the newest, the monk has interesting movement abilities like no class (striker or non-striker) has. It is their trick.

The sorcerer's trick is pure damage, and being able to get through resistances. You can make a very viable fire-only or lightning-only sorcerer, while no other class can get away with that as easily. Even Demogorgon, with a massive 30 variable resistance, is likely to have little or no resistance to a sorcerer's attack, and would be well advised not to waste one of his few uses on whatever element the sorcerer is spamming.

But a sorcerer has little or no ability to hinder the enemy. While he is chipping away at the enemy's hit points, they are doing the same to him, especially as a sorcerer is very good with clsoe blasts. They can stand back for sure, but close blasts are the best way to get a lot of targets and multiply their str/dex extra damage.

The power of the warlock has always been their non-damage effects. Kill an enemy and get a nice ability, be it temp hit points, a nice teleport, or whatnot. And they can inflict conditions pretty strongly also. -x to hit, save ends conditions and such.

In certain circumstances either could be stronger. WIth a lot of medium threats, perhaps the sorcerer would win out.

But against a single baddie I would go for the warlock's abilities to hinder the opponent form doing their trick in return.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'm trying out raising the warlock's damage type by a die type (d6 ---> d8) and letting their curse damage apply multiple times per round to multiple targets and seeing how that goes. I also the warlock pick one stat and apply it for all powers... now if only I could easily do that in the character builder, I'd be a lot happier.

 

[Stalker0]

After Arcane Power came out, the warlock in my group gave up and changed to a bard. I personally feel the sorcerer is a better warlock in general. Sorcs still have decent controller parts, but are much more solid strikers. And the flavor of the two is such that in many cases you could turn a warlock into a sorc and keep your character concept.

 

[Cadfan]

I think the warlock's fine. Has been, continues to be. I think the fear that the warlock is weak or obsolete comes from being overly concerned with DPR and inadequately concerned with defense, mobility, and non damage special effects.

To a certain extent WotC is responsible for this, at least from the perspective of framing. Strikers have the reputation of being "the DPR role," and so people judge them with a laser focused attention to damage dealt. That's the one thing I don't like about the role system- it encourages people to devalue aspects of a character class that aren't directly related to the primary attributes of the class's role.

 

[Minigiant]

I describe strkers with 3 attributes.
Range: Ranged, Melee, or Mixed
Damage Focus: Aggressive (pure damage), Controlling (debuff and damage), or Situtational (variable damage and other weirdness)
Defense: Natural, Hinder, or Mixed

Sorcerers are ranged, aggressive, strikers that rely on natural defenses. They pound on you hard and fast from afar and hope by the time you catch them, you lack the HP to seek revenge. Because dead people can fight 'til you cast raise dead.

Warlocks are ranged, controlling strikers that have various way to defend themselves. They beat you at ranged while making a counterattack not so easy. Then they buff their defenses more.

Sorcerers (barbarians, and rangers) are like goblins. They hit you, fill you with poison, hit you again, sic a dog on you, then run away if you survive.
Warlocks (rogues, and avengers) are like kobold. They hit you in your soft spot, throw sand in your eyes, and take your weapons. Then they'll stand on the other side of a trap.

 

[Rechan]

I'd play every type of warlock before I played a sorcerer.

Sorcerer just does not excite me in the least. It's down there with Ranger as my least-favorite.

I have one Feylock in a group right now, and he seems to be having a good time. My other group, the player was running two characters (warlock, swordmage) and traded them both in for a single avenger.

 

[Vael]

I like both classes.

 

[Dausuul]

So far, I think WOTC has done an excellent job of making each striker different, and still viable. (Many would and probably will argue this, though) Going with the newest, the monk has interesting movement abilities like no class (striker or non-striker) has. It is their trick.

I sure hope they've got better tricks than that. That was their trick in 3E too, and look how well that worked. They were the class that fighters mocked for being underpowered.

 

[Felon]

I think the warlock's fine. Has been, continues to be. I think the fear that the warlock is weak or obsolete comes from being overly concerned with DPR and inadequately concerned with defense, mobility, and non damage special effects.

To a certain extent WotC is responsible for this, at least from the perspective of framing. Strikers have the reputation of being "the DPR role," and so people judge them with a laser focused attention to damage dealt. That's the one thing I don't like about the role system- it encourages people to devalue aspects of a character class that aren't directly related to the primary attributes of the class's role.

People focus on damage output because it's what strikers are supposed to bring to the table. It's their major contribution. And equally noteworthy, DPS is readily quantifiable. Defense? Nuking your opponent to heck and back is a great defense--beyond that, that's what defenders are for. Mobility? Not sure how the warlock excels at that more than any other striker, and in fact, it's likely less mobile than many others that trump its output--but again, it's hard to quantify.

Neat little bonus effects are all good and well, but they don't give any particular class an edge because every class has a battery of rider effects on their powers, and for one class's powerset to indisputably trump every rider effect that's in another class's powerset is pretty unlikely.

I thought it readily apparent that I was focusing purely on comparative effectiveness, but some replies seem to want to validate the warlock simply because it sounds cooler to them than the warlock. It is perfectly possible to play a mechanically weak class and still enjoy oneself. I continue to play my warlock because I like character I'm playing, because the DM seems invested in him, and I like the basic premise of the class, but I have no illusions that he's doing anything for the party that a sorcerer couldn't match or exceed.