Forked Thread: Twilight of the Warlocks

[Plane Sailing]

I wonder whether the warlock would work better if its curse damage could apply to all targets hit in a round (rather than only once in a round)?

This would still put them slightly behind the sorcerer (on average) in terms of bonus damage applied, because they have fewer burst/blast attacks and they have to curse someone before they can get the extra damage, however if they get to add their d6 to someone on a basic hit and on an OA (or from something like infernal rebuke/dire radiance on both the primary effect and the secondary effect if triggered), then they will start seeming a little more like a striker, perhaps?

I might run that idea past my group for the next time I run my game (probably in about 6 weeks time), as we have an infernal warlock in the party.

Cheers

 

[vagabundo]

Some background reading.

Discusses the options in Arcane Power for Warlocks:
[4E] Warlocks after Arcane Power - RPGnet Forums

Warlocks Guide on the Offical forums - has some posts at the end about the PHBII:
A Warlock Guide - Wizards Community

--------------------------

In my opinion you can create very viable characters with the Warlock and they have some of the strongest flavour of any of the classes. Yes, they may not be on an equal damaging footing with some of the other strikers, but I'm not sure that matters as much as having a fun character to play.

And a few well placed homebrew feats could solve this issue: like Plane Sailings suggestion above. Any fix would probably revolve around expanding their warlocks' curse.

--------------------------

On the flavour side of things, I've been disappointed that there hasn't been a good article on Pacts and the entities that you have pacts with. I'm sure there could be interesting additional mechanical elements that could come from having a pact with Yog-Sothoth or Cthulhu.

For the fey I've always imagined an enormous elder tree that is hideously ancient and warlocks that pact with it gain insight bonus's and an extra encounter power to enhance their attacks against a cursed creature. It drains all souls it receives of knowledge and feeds on the empty energy husks. Sometimes you can commune with the tree to ask for assistance, but talk with it too long and it will start to drain your healing surges.

 

[Jack99]

One of my players has a 14th level warlock (fey/infernal double pact). Every time a cursed creature dies, he gains 14 hit points or can teleport an obscene amount of squares. Aside from that, he has around 6 encounter powers that allow him to teleport. He can curse two monsters at the time, and under certain circumstances, he can curse as a free action. And now, with AP, he can even pass on the effects of his pact to a nearby ally.

Sure, his damage is not stellar, but his spells are very controllery (teleport, charm, blind etc) and his movement/teleport makes him virtually impossible to pin down (stunlock is basically the only option) and thus extremely flexible on the battlefield.

Much more than any other striker IMO.

But yeah, damagewise he sucks

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

The Striker Role is not just DPR. It's also bringing the hurt where you need and want it. Mobility and Range are very important for Strikers, and I think the Warlock does well in that area.

 

[jasin]

The Striker Role is not just DPR. It's also bringing the hurt where you need and want it. Mobility and Range are very important for Strikers, and I think the Warlock does well in that area.

Doesn't sorcerer (unlike the warlock) have range 20 powers?

 

[Dausuul]

The Striker Role is not just DPR. It's also bringing the hurt where you need and want it. Mobility and Range are very important for Strikers, and I think the Warlock does well in that area.

If you have attacks with range 10 or better, which IIRC is true of every ranged striker in the game, you can lay down the hurt wherever you need it 90% of the time. Mobility is important for melee warriors much more than it is for ranged combatants (and even then, it's very much a secondary shtick).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mobility is still important - you don't want to get caught between multiple foes in melee while using ranged attacks. And a Range of 20 doesn't allow you to go beyond cover or walls.

 

[Minigiant]

From my experience, a ranged character needs mobility badly. If a DM sends a determened skrimisher or lurker after you and the defender is busy/unable to help/ineffective, you better be able to move 8+ squares or shift/teleport squares AND uses a attack power than discourages them to follow.

Or they'll be in your face next turn
And the next turn.
And the next turn.
And the next turn.
And the next turn.
Until someone dies.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't know where the idea that warlocks get more riders on their powers than sorcerers came from. Sorcerers get tons of riders on their powers and they have many more multi-target powers. So, while the warlock is hitting one enemy who he might get extra damage on (if he could curse it) and gets a rider on it, the sorcerer is hitting multiple enemies, always getting his extra damage on them, and getting a rider onto every single one.

As a player of a warlock in a group I get to play in, I can see serious problems with the warlock's design. The reason I play him is because I'm going with the atypical conlock/fighter build, although I have concerns about that as well that I won't get into here.

After seeing a friend of mine's sorcerer build where he was adding +19 (about +15 without cheese) to damage on every attack, I just can't see how anyone can claim the sorcerer isn't flat out better. Even if the warlock got to do curse damage to all targets all the time. Even if the warlock didn't have to curse enemies to do that damage. The sorcerer would still be flat out better.

 

[Felon]

The Striker Role is not just DPR. It's also bringing the hurt where you need and want it. Mobility and Range are very important for Strikers, and I think the Warlock does well in that area.

Granted, the striker is not just about damage output--but that's what's at it's core. If a striker is routinely pulling up the rear behind the party defender or leader, it does really call into question what the striker is contributing. Mobility and range are important, but they're not much compensation if you're just flitting about with a bunch of peashooter. At-wills that do 1d6 damage and encounters that do 2d6 are pretty ridiculous.

And even allowing for the importance of mobility and range--how does that validate the warlock? He doesn't stand out from the pack in either area.