D&D 3.x Are 3.5 Warlocks unbalancing?

[irdeggman]

I just started playing my first warlock PC (and the first time anyone has run one in a game I've played).

Started at 3rd level (joined an existing group).

I did multiclass ranger 1/warlock 2 for themeatic purposes. Favored enemy - evil outsiders. Theme - demon hunter alignment c.g.

The 2 least invocations - eldritch spear and devil's sight (DM treats darkness as darkness not shadowy illumination)

He as so far been subpar in combat. The paladin and vow of poverty monk (still waiting for him to get his clock cleaned since he can't take the toe-to-toe damage as well) still deal the majority of damage.

Just gained a level and today I get to try him with the the 2d6 eldritch blast.

IMO at mid-levels the eldritch blast damage might be seen as too powerful - but in general it only affects a single target and can be used only once per round. Multi-attacking front line combatants do consistently more damgage. Don't forget the soft cover rules for trying to blast a foe when he's engaged in combat with an ally. {I took point blank and then precise shot to mitigate this - but you can see how many feats I've had to spend to be "useful"} A mid-level wizard does more damage with a fireball to more combatants than a warlock can. 5th level wizard does 5d6 (save for half) to all within a 20 ft radius.

Something else to keep in mind is that there are relatively few decent prestige classes that a warlock can qualify for since they don't cast spells of certain levels.

 

[Scharlata]

thoughts?

Hi!

I'm in the camp: Warlock = slightly broken.

As a DM, I allowed a warlock in my current campaign (starting at 1st level) and was surprised how much fire power and other unbalancing incantations a warlock does command. As the character met a watery death in a deep ocean, I discontinued to allow warlocks as player characters.

Instead, I used a hobgoblin warlock/fighter against the group, and the players were surprised how much fire power and other unbalancing incantations that warlock possessed.

IF the eldritch blast was a ranged attack and not a ranged touch attack, that would be a step in the right direction. Archers, as Thanee pointed out, are fine because they have to hit with a ranged attack and mostly deal only 1d8 damage even at levels 4 and 5, instead of 2d6 or 3d6.

So, I can understand your DM. Ask yourself, if you are likely to play a warlock if you have to wait until level 8 or 9. If you decline, you know why your DM disallows warlocks in his/her campaign.

Kind regards and I'll hope you find an agreement with your DM.

 

[Archade]

I'm in the camp that thinks they are fairly balanced, but I have to agree that the touch attack roll is a HUGE benefit.

I've been DMing a Warlock since 3rd level, and the party is up to 14th level now. Something I've noticed is that the Warlock consistently deals out more damage than any other character (including the fighters), so monsters don't last long. Spell resistance or not.

On the other hand, they only get one shot per round, so against hordes of goons, they aren't very effective.

 

[Zakkiel]

Look at the rest of the party

I think it depends on the size of the party and what the environmnent of the campaign is.
I believe the one post that said Warlocks start slightly ahead of the power curve, but then quickly
fall behind the others is most accurate. I'm not 100% sure on how accurate the Warlock is with their
eldritch blast, but it seems to me a mid-level Archer is going to hit a lot more often and thus mow down
enemies much faster, and then an archer can pull out melee weapons in hand-to-hand and they're still a darn good fighter...a warlock has to rely on their mystical abilities to survive - they can't do squat in combat without that eldritch attack, and since it only has a 60' range to start, I just don't see why it is considered by any
DM as unbalancing.
As anyone knows after DMing for several years, that you can easily compensate for 1-2 seemingly overpowered abilitis rather quickly. If you're only going up against orcs and other low level critters, then sure, the Warlock will cut them down rather well; but against powerful enemies, such as demonkind and the like, theyr'e just a one-trick pony with a few perks - it's just like a mage who has unlimited magic missiles, but that's about it.
See how powerful a Warlock is when a group of Orc barbarians catch him in melee....
I think it's a power tript o tell a character you can't run something because I don't like it if it really isn't
overpowering the game.
I've heard Dms say this, but have no beef with the Paladin's +5 Holy Avenger or
the magic-users Staff of the Magi. Go figure.

 

[Hammerhead]

I feel that the Warlock is pretty weak, really. Of course, it depends on the campaign. My group doesn't do dungeons, and have only a few encounters per day (well, only a few fights per day). But even in a dungeon, I can't ever imagine a Warlock being broken...that fighter can hit for way more damage than the Warlock ever could. The Warlock is just a very reliable damage dealer with a few extra tricks.

 

[Chimera]

Haven't seen one as a PC yet, just have run them as NPCs and Villains. So I can't add much other than to generally agree with the above. They might seem over-powered up front, but in real action they tend to prove rather limited. A decent GM won't be flustered by the fact that you can do one thing (like climb walls) ALL OF THE TIME.

That being said, I think they make excellent villains, especially when supported by others. I have one IMG who is believed to be a Wizard. Well, that's just because he has a Sorcerer, two Wizards and a Cleric making things for him all the time that he can use due to maxed out UMD. So he's more flexible than normal only because he has piles of wands, potions and scrolls to increase his apparent power and abilities.

When you stop and think about it, that may be the solution for the mid to higher level PC Warlock, although it tends to be rather expensive in the long run. In a low-resource or low-wealth game, you wouldn't want to do that. But in a high-resource, high wealth game...

 

[pawsplay]

Warlocks are medium-weak with a very basic build, but with a careful selection of invocations and feats, can excel in some areas. If you want to focus on blasts, your ranged feats can do double duty with a crossbow until you get Vitriolic Blast (which 90% of all warlocks should take fairly soon after it becomes available). With the right invocations, a warlock can be a flying, invisible, super-bluffing kind of superhero.

I can see how some GMs would want to restrict them... their flavor is a little un-PC-like, as even the good ones channel primal, inhuman forces. And they are endless batteries of magical energy, which is not consistent with some game worlds. Some GMs dislike touch attacks creeping up in unexpected place. They also get fiendish powers as they gain levels, which makes them a difficult fit for some parties, say, if you have a Paladin, or a fiend-hunting Ranger, or even an Arcane Disciple Wizard with the the Good domain.

 

[Victim]

No. In my experience, the Warlock has been very consistent - with few exceptions, his stuff is going to be the same from round to round, and from fight to fight.

They could, however, be somewhat annoying, since they have access to permanent effects like See Invis at low level, can start every fight Invisible, etc.

 

[zoroaster100]

Are you sure your DM has a problem with the power of the class, and not with the flavor? After all, if his world is designed around the standard arcane/divine magic system, there may not be a place for warlocks to fit into the world.

 

[Shellman]

IF the eldritch blast was a ranged attack and not a ranged touch attack, that would be a step in the right direction. QUOTE]

Then why don't you just house rule that the EB is a ranged attack instead of totally disallowing the class?