D&D 3E/3.5 3.5E - is the warlock underpowered?

[NewJeffCT]

I was making up a group of NPCs to challenge the party and decided for a bit of flavor, that I would change the NPC caster to a warlock from a sorcerer. Both were level 6.

However, I got a lot less bang for my buck in terms of challenging the players. I tend to run one big encounter/combat per session, rather than several smaller combats, so maybe that was my problem?

The warlock's eldritch blast at that level does 3d6 damage, only affecting one opponent at a time - and, they still need to make a ranged attack to hit.

A 6th level sorcerer could cast at least 3 fireballs at that level, and most likely four. Each fireball would do 6d6 damage, does not need a "to hit" roll and can affect a whole slew of targets.

Then, after the sorcerer casts his 3 or 4 fireballs, he could then cast 5 or 6 scorching rays. Each casting would be two scorching rays and each ray would do 4d6 damage (better than the warlock's eldritch blast) - while the sorcerer's attack bonus (+4 vs +3) is not as good as the warlock's, he does get two shots to the warlock's one.

Finally, after spending 8-10 rounds unloading fireballs and scorching rays, the sorcerer can then cast 3 magic missiles per round for 6-7 rounds for 3d4+3 damage each round with no chance of missing.

So, unless my big encounter goes well over 14-17 rounds, I would consider the sorcerer way more potent than a warlock.

However, in a campaign where there are several encounters per day, that usefulness can change quite a bit.

But, am I missing something on the warlock otherwise?

Thanks

 

[Drowbane]

Warlocks are very underpowered.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I played a warlock in a short campaign. They can be underpowered, but I'd describe them more as one-trick ponies than as underpowered. In the right situations, with the right ability choices, they can be ok. But there's not much variety to playing one, unless you work at it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

They're MUCH less powerful than primary casters. If you think of them as an archer or jack-of-all-trades (mainly from ease of item use and creation with Use Magic Device), they compare fairly evenly with Rangers, Rogues, and Bards IMHO.

So, my answer to the OP's question is...depends.

EDIT: And yes, few combats per day hurts the warlock's usefulness. In my experience, Warlocks thrive in more brutal games. Ones where there are nearly unending fights and/or low treasure. My last Warlock was very weak. The DM insisted on rolling for stats and I ended up with my highest being a 14, two 8's, overall I think I had the equivalent of 22 point buy. Others in the party had equivalent point buys of as much as 45 points (I was angry and mathed it out). Despite this, the game itself was very rough. We started out making a prison break with the clothes on our backs at level 5. We struggled to even get food let alone gear for the next several weeks. So despite my terrible stats, the fact i could shoot from 250 ft (thank you, eldritch spear), climb walls to basically become un-attackable half the fights we had, and later on could at will make people my friend...the DM was pretty clear who he considered the most powerful one in the party. Which was bad, cause he was doing an almost adversarial DM style. I ended up leaving, fed up with being punished for playing intelligently and foiling his encounters. But darn if my underpowered warlock didn't rock.

 

[Allister]

As others have stated, warlocks are built for LONG adventuring days.

Given the model for many campaigns of "one or two combat(s) per day", warlocks frankly are nothing more than archers with a few cute tricks.

Similarly, this is why they don't make very good NPC opponents as NPCs need to be able do as much damage in 5-6 rounds as possible.

 

[malraux]

To echo what others have said, the warlock seems like one answer to the question of how to deal with the 15 minute adventuring day. Its main problem is that it showed up about the time that most parties figured out that they'd rather over-buff then rest and DMs decided that a few big fights were better than the attrition of abilities that the warlock was balanced against.

 

[Fifth Element]

Warlocks are much more powerful as PCs than opponents. Opponents tend to fight one fight, which allows an enemy sorcerer to burn all his big spells up front. PCs often have several encounters in the same day, making a warlock PC more useful.

 

[That One Guy]

Warlocks are much more powerful as PCs than opponents. Opponents tend to fight one fight, which allows an enemy sorcerer to burn all his big spells up front. PCs often have several encounters in the same day, making a warlock PC more useful.

Also, don't underestimate the whole bag of scrolls that every warlock worth their salt should have. Also, I can't remember what levels they become useable, but the metamagic-like things that affect spell-like abilities for warlocks. I've used warlocks to such effectiveness that a few of my friends have made houserules against letting PCs play them. In the right situations or long enough days, they can be quite vicious. I seem to remember their blast being ranged touch and being good for use w/ spear for massive range and maximum spell sniping potential.

Also, why would a warlock ever fight PCs in a fair fight? They have so many tricks to make the fight completely unfair. I honestly cannot recall what a warlock can do at that level, but I'm pretty sure they should have one basic charm or hiding ability that is nice. (And at higher levels if one grabs Eldritch Glaive from whatever splatbook... dang that thing's vicious.)

 

[Sammael]

Not underpowered, just bland. I played one and was one of the most effective members of my party when it came to combat, but it got boring quickly.

 

[roguerouge]

They can be big hitters as PCs. You start getting the capability of pounding Fort, Reflex, and Will saves by mid levels, especially if you're taking "Extra Invocation" as a feat regularly. Ranged touch attacks make melee brutes cry, in particular.