D&D 3E/3.5 Are 3.5 Warlocks unbalancing?

[iceifur]

I stand behind my earlier comment -- the warlock starts ahead of the power curve, but soon falls behind. If you want to address some of the perceived power-wonkiness of the class, though, here are a few issues and some proposed fixes:

Baleful Utterance may be (i.e. probably is) too good. Unlimited shatter is hardly kosher, regardless of when the ability would be obtained. Tagging the ability with some bonus effects was just ... wrong. Drop the invocation from the list, and it'll only be missed by those with an addiction to powergaming . No harm, no foul.​

The gimped range on the flee the scene invocation stops it from being too useful, and the image it leaves behind is a flavorful addition. If you tack on the same restriction that creatures with other at-will teleport abilities have (self plus 50 lbs of objects only), you have the perfect medium.​

Any of the invocations that summon or create something temporary (swarms, walls, etc.) aren't completely boned by stipulating that the warlock can only have one instance of that invocation's effects in existence at one time. The utility remains without the warlock creating an open-air city of fire (wall of perilous flame, I'm looking at you).​

Thoughts?

 

[Mistwell]

I like the class. I think it is balanced. It's perhaps a bit underpowered, and I think in play after a while it would be a bit boring because of the severe limit on the number of different kinds of things each character can do. But overall, I certainly don't think it's broken or unbalanced.

 

[javcs]

It's not overpowered, in my games, the Warlock gets to add Cha to EB damage, they're still sub-par in damage, but respectable in terms of accuracy.

Humans are probably the best low-level Warlocks - Point Blank and Precise Shot are necessary, and feats are precious.

 

[Scharlata]

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

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

Hi!

Because of the annoying incantations like See in total darkness, detect magic, summon swarm, etc.

Kind regards

 

[brehobit]

Hi!

Because of the annoying incantations like See in total darkness, detect magic, summon swarm, etc.

Kind regards

I see this a lot and don't understand it.

I think the point is that an archer is MUCH better than a warlock at what the warlock is supose to be best at with that rule. Remember a warlock only gets one shot off per round. At 11th level its a 5d6 blast (I think) averaging 17.5 damage and probably a minor effect vs. 3-4 arrows each doing 10-15 points of damage and able to ignore SR. And with a much better range. The lower numbers are for a melee fighter with a strenght bow and no feats. Heck, the _warlock_ will do more damage with the bow than his blast.

If you are going to do that, I'd at the _least_ argue for the ability to bypass SR, and also argue for iterative attacks. I'd _still_ avoid the warlock at that point though.

Mark

 

[Plane Sailing]

Kurotowa - I've had to edit an earlier comment of yours in the thread for rudeness. Please keep to offering advice and opinion about the topic at hand while avoiding being rude or condescending to other posters.

Thanks

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is a mantra that WotC's designers like to spout frequently: "actions are the fundamental currency in the D&D game ". The hole in this logic is so obvious that you have to wonder if the guys at WotC actually play D&D as an RPG anymore and not just a miniatures skirmish game. Have they forgotten there's a game that takes place outside of an initiative order? True, the number of actions a character gets during the course of combat may be very finite, but the number of actions a character can take out of combat is vast. Shattering every obstacle, teleporting around every hazard, charming every NPC--the potential for abuse is very real. And what's more, it's not really a "bad player" issue. The player is really just taking advantage what his class is designed to do.

This is very very true. Couldn't agree more

 

[RigaMortus2]

I see this a lot and don't understand it.

I think the point is that an archer is MUCH better than a warlock at what the warlock is supose to be best at with that rule. Remember a warlock only gets one shot off per round. At 11th level its a 5d6 blast (I think) averaging 17.5 damage and probably a minor effect vs. 3-4 arrows each doing 10-15 points of damage and able to ignore SR. And with a much better range. The lower numbers are for a melee fighter with a strenght bow and no feats. Heck, the _warlock_ will do more damage with the bow than his blast.

Mark

Well, the Warlock will be hitting more often since he is only hitting a touch AC each time. The "archer" will have a slightly harder time hitting with arrows, especially with his last 2 iterative attacks (since their BAB will be much lower). Also, not sure how your archer is doing 10-15 damage. I am assuming a 1d8 bow and maybe +4 for Weapon Spec? That is an average of what? 8.5 damage? Unless you are assuming a magical bow with some other properties, but then the Warlock can do the same and get that item that gives his blasts a +2d6 upgrade.

And actually at 11th level, his base blast damage is 6d6. Tack on Vitrolic Blast for an additional +2d6 damage and that bumps it to +8d6 for the initial shot (and +2d6 damage the next round). Tack on the Chausible of Fell Power (Greater) and that is another +2d6 damage. If he takes Quicken SLA (Eldritch Blast) at 12th level, he can get 2 shots off a round 3/day. But we won't factor that in...

So at level 11, it would look like this:
Round 1) 6d6 (base) +2d6 (Vitriloic blast) +2d6 Chauible of Fell Power = 10d6 or average 35 points of damage
Round 2) 2d6 acid damage from Vitrolic blast the round before +6d6 (base) +2d6 (Vitriloic blast again) +2d6 Chauible of Fell Power = 12d6 or average 42 points of damage
Round 3-4) Repeat 2

Not too bad, eh?

 

[FireLance]

Because of the annoying incantations like See in total darkness, detect magic, summon swarm, etc.

I think the basic structure of the warlock is fine, but I agree that some invocations might be problematic. The solution to me, at least, is to change out the problematic invocations for others. I find it odd that seeing in darkness and detect magic at will are seen as problems, though. Plus, summon swarm has a duration of concentration plus 2 rounds, so a warlock is not likely to have many of those active at the same time.

 

[Sithobi1]

Actually, the Warlock's version of Summon Swarm is Concentration duration, so only one at a time.