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

[FireLance]

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

Oops, my bad. I didn't have my Complete Arcane with me, so I just checked the spell description in the SRD.

 

[ForceUser]

Probably the most potent and versatile ability the warlock has is their unique mastery of magic devices. I suspect there are many warlocks who packs their own little quiver of wands, both arcane and divine. That should open tactics a bit.

Yes. I forgot to mention that the lvl 10 warlock IMC is a wand specialist. He's got half a dozen of the most iconic wizard spells on wands (glitterdust, invisibility, fireball, web), and with Quick Draw, he's pretty good at whipping them out during combat.

 

[iceifur]

Yes. I forgot to mention that the lvl 10 warlock IMC is [...] pretty good at whipping them out during combat.

You know, there's a law against that kind of thing in most states.

 

[Scharlata]

[...]This is one of those classes that looks far more powerful on paper than it plays in game.

I opt to differ... for the reasons mentioned above.

Kind regards

 

[irdeggman]

Hello, everybody! I see a lot of, "Well maybe the DM thought this..." and "Obviously the DM doesn't understand ..." Since I'm the DM in question, answering those thoughts seemed the thing to do.



My two friends and I wanted to start a brad new group that roleplayed. No independent Wolverine's, no loner Raistlin Majere's, no chaotic Elric's. I wanted a group that would work well together, build a cohesive group, and still have fun. Since my two friends and I already have a great group that we game with, we felt we could be picky choosing new players for this group; it gave us the ability to find people who liked to game just like us.

Anyhoo, one of the things that bugs me as a DM is when a new player, one I don't know at all, asks to play a non-core class or race, and then demonstrates to me that they don't understand any of the extra rules that come along with it. I.E., choosing to play a drow but not understanding level adjustment. When a player asks to play something non-core, I expect them to show me how it works. I have enough on my plate as the DM without memorizing even more before the game starts!

With that in mind, I made a rule for this particular campaign: I don't know some of these folks, or their ability to handle non-core classes or races, so let's stick with the Player's Handbook.

Lastly, if the class had become a problem, and since it's a long-term campaign, the repercussion could ruin the game. But that's a worst-case scenario--the destruction could merely be limited to our own galaxy.

This is a perfecty sound stance as long as you are consistent with your players.

From the OP:

Hi - I have always wanted to run a Warlock in a 3.5 campaign,
but now the 2nd GM in a row has denied the class, even though
they allow all kinds of other powerful kits/combinations/etc;
does anyone else out there feel that Warlocks are unbalancing (and this is for
a 1st level game)?

I of course am not challenging the GM - it's his game, and he's a kick ass GM with a killer way of playing - but I am hugely disappointed, as eveyrone else is getting to run exactly what they want,
but I do not. (I've GMed for years, and always had warlocks among the party, never found they were unbalancing - have always wanted to PLAY one, but no dice yet - pun intended).

Note the overall tone of respect for the DM in question (namely you). This can not be overstated.

Now the aspect that does raise questions is his statement about

"they allow all kinds of other powerful kits/combinations/etc;"

and

as eveyrone else is getting to run exactly what they want,

Now as long as this is straight core only then this really shouldn't be a problem since most of the poweful kits/combinations/etc. come from supplements and not the core only.


He also mentioned that he has allowed warlocks in all of the games he has run so his umfamiliarity with the class should not be a question.

But if you are staying with core only and being consistent with that there really should be no problem at all, especially if that is made clear at the beginning.

 

[Thurbane]

I just never quite understood the reasoning behind the flavor of the Warlock...he makes pacts with dark beings so can shoot death rays like an X-Men wannabe? ZAP! BOOM! KAPOWEE!

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I just never quite understood the reasoning behind the flavor of the Warlock...he makes pacts with dark beings so can shoot death rays like an X-Men wannabe? ZAP! BOOM! KAPOWEE!

Yeah, 'cause we wouldn't want things that aren't realistic in the game like magic, psionics, or wildshaping!

All kidding aside, I do hear what you are saying, though. The flavor of the warlock is deffinately unique. But, it also takes a special player to want to play a warlock. The typical poster that has played a warlock usually says something aking to your comments above: Neat for a few levels, but I tired of only having a few tricks in my bag. Zap! Boom! Kapowee! And, I personally belong to this camp as well. I don't like playing warlocks personally because of their limited development potential.

However, I do still allow them in game. Some players love the mechanic, love the routes that the class can go, and enjoy doing similar things over and over. If that's what they like, I'll allow it in my game - especially since the warlock is far from overpowered. Or ... rather I should say ... the warlock's power can be easily neutralized by forcing them into situations not directly solvable by use of their powers all the time.

 

[Thurbane]

I hear what you're saying.

I think the fluff on Warlocks is great, but I just think it would be better suited to someone like a Thaumaturgist than an energy bolt slinger. I don't necessarily have a problem with the mechanics of the Warlock either - as you say, it is no harder to suspend disbelief for psionics etc. (BTW, I also don't allow Psionics in my games - our group is more or less core only).

It's really more that the fluff and mechanics don't mesh well together, IMHO...

 

[Particle_Man]

Well, all of this is IMHO:

1) I think the Warlocks are balanced. The possible problems can be house ruled, as is the case with every other class.

2) I think the Warlocks have cool fluff.

3) I love that Warlocks are a "no paperwork mage". I don't have to keep track of points or slots or anything, and since there are only a few powers they are easy to keep track of. This is fine for me as I am lazy. I liked my Warlock as a player (well, getting grappled sucked...) and I would love to use them as a DM since they are pretty much "Grab and Go".

That said, if the DM is going core-only, I can totally understand that. But that is not vs. Warlock in particular - that is vs. everything that is not core.

I would be interesting in trying a "replacement heroes" game where the DM picks 11 non-core classes and makes them the only ones available to PCs.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Having played a Warlock from 1st to 10th level, I'd say they are far from overpowered. In fact, I think I dare say they are a bit underpowered. People seem to have a gut reaction of "OMG overpowered!" when they hear about at will spells, but really, it's not as powerful as you think. Keep in mind that many classes have the ability to use their abilities at will - a rogue's sneak attack, a fighter's feats, etc.

Eldritch Blast is nice, but it's also far weaker than most spells. It only hits one target within 60 feet (invocations can extend it to 250 feet or allow it to hit a few targets at once). It also does about half the damage that a Wizard, Sorcerer or Warmage can dish out each turn (and they can blow up alot more people alot farther away). Having this ability at will is nice, since you never have to worry about running out of it, but in my experience the ability to unleash more damage more quickly is usually more important in a fight. A Warlock actually plays alot more like an archer class than a Mage. Yes, touch attacks seem powerful, but believe me, the Rangers and Barbarians almost always outdamaged me. Archers and Melee get something Warlocks don't - multiple attacks. The touch attack factor is the main thing that makes the Warlock's Eldritch Blast competitive. As nice as Eldritch Blast is, a Druid can cast a single spell - Call Lightning, and pretty much do the same thing (they don't even need to make a touch attack). It runs out, sure, but it usually lasts through most battles, in my experience.

The main drawback to the Warlock is that it just gets extremely boring and repetative. All you do is the same things over and over and over and over and over again. You have so few spells as a Warlock (only a dozen or so at 20th level). Basically, you have Wizards on one end of the spectrum, Sorcerers in the middle, and Warlocks on the other end. Wizards have a vast array of spells to chose from, but get few a day and have to worry about preparation. Sorcerers get less spells in their arsenal, but don't have to prepare them and get more per day than Wizards. Warlocks get only a fraction of the number of spells that even Sorcerers have, but can use them at will. And Warlock invocations are usually less impressive than spells that other casters have at the same level.

I think it balances out pretty well. I think the Warlock is a cool class. It has a great theme and flavor to it, and it's pretty well balanced. That said, I don't think I will play one again. They're just too repetitive and simple for my taste. As cool as Warlocks are, I think I'll go back to playing a Wizard. I'd highly recommend the Warlock class to new players though.