Help me grock the warlock

[Aservan]

Ok the eyebite cheese for those who don't know is this: You use your divine challenge on a target and then eyebite him. If you hit you are invisible to him until the beginning of your next turn. He now has trouble attacking you and will likely choose to attack another target or no target at all. The benefit of him not attacking is obvious. If he does switch targets he takes damage from the challenge. Given the Feylocks have a high charisma the damage is not insignificant.

Like most combos when it works it does so well and when it doesn't it really doesn't. It is a crappy attack on a dragon or any solo that has an AOE attack. Invisibility doesn't work versus AOE. Things like gelatinous cubes don't see anyway so they ignore it as well. It is a lot of effort to kill an ordinary monster so it usually works best to kill solos. Even there though it can be a slogfest because of Eyebite's relatively low damage. The biggest downside is that it can miss. Eyebite targets will but you can always roll like crud. If you miss he can see you and feylocks are not the toughest members of the class.

Okay, let's run the numbers again...

At this point, the rogue is ahead by one point of damage per hit if the enemy is cooperative, half a point if the enemy is uncooperative. This is not a gamebreakingly horrific damage advantage, and it is not without cost to the rogue. The reason we hear that the rogue is leaving the warlock in the dust is that people keep comparing warlock B to rogue A.

The reason we want to compare rogue A to warlock B is because of the control issue. The party can set the rogue up to have combat advantage. It takes some work and involves some one giving up "the optimal move" for their character in order to set the rogue up but when you do the reward is kinda awesome.

You have no control over what the DM does with the monsters. You can get our party to work together. It is that simple.

You are also ignoring the to hit differences between the rogue and the warlock. It is pretty difficult for most warlocks to get combat advantage. They tend to be hovering right outside of the main melee. Rogues are actively seeking it out. Combat Advantage = +2 to hit. Rogues use daggers because they are +4 to hit. Warlocks attack reflex mostly which is worth a +2 to hit (Will is worth +3 but only feylocks and humans can do that reliably). Net advantage rogue by +4 (or +3 vs. a Will warlock). The rogue will hit more. Prime shot reduces the advantage by 1 more but is (again) very situational.

The next thing to do is compare crit damage. The biggest attack a 1st level warlock can unload is Flames of Flegethos for 3d10+5+1d6 or 41 damage. A Brutal Scoundrel Rogue (18 dex, 16 Str) can backstab someone with a rapier for 2d8+2d8+4+3+3 or 42 with tortuous strike. That's a daily versus an ENCOUNTER. Now the Flames will then burn the enemy for 5 more on his turn. Or will they. Hobgoblins can make the save before their turn. Leaders can help their buddies out, etc.

Now remember that a classic swashbuckler build will use both a rapier and a dagger and a rogue can switch between the two at will to get the higher damage or the higher to hit. Oh and she gets +1 to hit and +1 to AC and reflex if she has the right feats (which is only a matter of getting enough of them). Oh and weapon focus light blade for some more damage.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy. That's what makes it fun. We can spin theory machines all day on this forum, I am just telling you that a warlock's damage is less then the rogue and that the rogue is consequently a better class to play for the striker role. That's my take anyway.

 

[bardolph]

I admit, I haven't been watching the Eyebite cheese discussions with a great amount of care. Is there some damage boosting on the Divine Challenge?

As far as I'm aware, Divine Challenge damage is slightly lower than average Hellish Rebuke secondary blast damage(prior to level 11). Of course, it makes up that difference in defensive bonuses and sheer awesome, but I don't really know how to count those things in the damage calculations.

Divine Challenge damage is more reliably inflicted than the second burst form HR or DR.

 

[Aservan]

Plus divine challenge plus hellish rebuke is a "damned if you do damned if you don't" situation for a DM and that's always fun to inflict as a player.

It's not as reliable as I'd like 'cause you can miss with the hellish rebuke and then the decision is easy, but you can't have everything.

The trick breaks down some in paragon levels as the DivChal damage is greater on average then the HellReb damage. It makes attacking the 'lock the easy choice. Which still works to get rid of DM apathy I guess. Until that monster dies they go back to beating on your buddies again, anyway.

 

[theNater]

The reason we want to compare rogue A to warlock B is because of the control issue. The party can set the rogue up to have combat advantage. It takes some work and involves some one giving up "the optimal move" for their character in order to set the rogue up but when you do the reward is kinda awesome.

If another party member is doing reduced damage so that the rogue can perform his Sneak Attack, we need to penalize the Sneak Attack damage by that amount to get an accurate feel for damage contributed by the rogue.

You have no control over what the DM does with the monsters. You can get our party to work together. It is that simple.

You don't need to control what the DM does with the monsters. Tide of Iron and Thunderwave can be used to trigger Dire Radiance, and Cloud of Daggers, Scorching Burst, and Thunderwave can be used to trigger Hellish Rebuke.

One thing the DM can do with the monsters is make them delay until just before the rogue, attack, then move to a point where they are not adjacent to any other party member. Then the rogue doesn't have combat advantage, and all of those mighty damage bonuses are gone.

You are also ignoring the to hit differences between the rogue and the warlock. It is pretty difficult for most warlocks to get combat advantage. They tend to be hovering right outside of the main melee. Rogues are actively seeking it out. Combat Advantage = +2 to hit. Rogues use daggers because they are +4 to hit. Warlocks attack reflex mostly which is worth a +2 to hit (Will is worth +3 but only feylocks and humans can do that reliably). Net advantage rogue by +4 (or +3 vs. a Will warlock). The rogue will hit more. Prime shot reduces the advantage by 1 more but is (again) very situational.

A rogue who uses a dagger will hit more, but for significantly less damage. A rogue who uses a rapier and has combat advantage is 2 points ahead of a warlock who has Prime Shot, 3 points ahead of one who doesn't. Of course, there's the feat cost to the rapier. A rogue who uses a crossbow is going to have just as hard a time getting combat advantage as the warlock does, and it hurts the rogue more.

Which brings me to one of my main points. Combat advantage is not automatic. Assuming the rogue has it every round while the warlock rarely or never has Prime Shot makes the rogue's numbers look massively better, especially with the huge chunk of damage Sneak Attack does.

The next thing to do is compare crit damage. The biggest attack a 1st level warlock can unload is Flames of Flegethos for 3d10+5+1d6 or 41 damage. A Brutal Scoundrel Rogue (18 dex, 16 Str) can backstab someone with a rapier for 2d8+2d8+4+3+3 or 42 with tortuous strike. That's a daily versus an ENCOUNTER. Now the Flames will then burn the enemy for 5 more on his turn. Or will they. Hobgoblins can make the save before their turn. Leaders can help their buddies out, etc.

Let's get the numbers out here. We'll use the same warlock and the same rogue, and look at a few other first level powers and a few other situations. Do note, however, that the rogue's advantage on attack bonuses is one lower than expected, as he has an 18 dex while the warlock has a 20 con.

Rogue:
With Sneak Attack:
Torturous Strike: 2d8+2d8+4+3+3. Avg 28, max 42, miss 0.
Trick Strike: 3d8+2d8+4+3. Avg 29.5, max 47, miss 0.

Without Sneak Attack:
Torturous Strike: 2d8+4+3. Avg 16, max 23, miss 0.
Trick Strike: 3d8+4. Avg 17.5, max 28, miss 0.

Warlock:
With curse, burn for 1 round:
Vampiric Embrace: 2d8+1d6+5. Avg 17.5, max 27, miss 0.
Flames of Phlegethos: 3d10+1d6+5+5. Avg 30, max 46, miss 5+1d6

With curse, no burn:
Vampiric Embrace: Same.
Flames of Phlegethos: 3d10+1d6+5. Avg 25, max 41, miss 0.

No curse, burn for 1 round:
Vampiric Embrace: 2d8+5. Avg 14, max 21, miss 0.
Flames of Phlegethos: 3d10+5+5. Avg 26.5, max 40, miss 5.

No curse, no burn:
Vampiric Embrace: Same.
Flames of Phlegethos: 3d10+5. Avg 21.5, max 35, miss 0.

What can we conclude? Firstly, that Torturous Strike is crazy awesome for a brutal scoundrel with a rapier and the Backstabber feat.

Secondly, that losing Sneak Attack hurts a rogue far more than losing curse hurts a warlock. Given that it is easier to deny combat advantage than it is to remove a Warlock's Curse, this is significant.

The actual numbers tell us that under optimal conditions, the rouge's encounter beats the warlock's encounter power significantly, and the warlock's daily beats the rogue's daily anywhere from slightly to massively, depending on how the target does on saves. Under terrible conditions, the rogue's encounter beats the warlock's encounter slightly and the warlock's daily power beats the rogue's daily significantly. So rogues have a distinct advantage if everything always goes their way.

I also find the implication that it is easier for a target to shake off a save ends effect before its turn than it is to deny the rogue combat advantage hilarious.

Now remember that a classic swashbuckler build will use both a rapier and a dagger and a rogue can switch between the two at will to get the higher damage or the higher to hit. Oh and she gets +1 to hit and +1 to AC and reflex if she has the right feats (which is only a matter of getting enough of them). Oh and weapon focus light blade for some more damage.

Yes, the rogue can switch freely between the reduced damage of the dagger and the reduced accuracy of the rapier. Nothing prevents the warlock from picking up a shield with one of the feats not needed for Backstabber and Weapon Proficiency in the rapier. Weapon Focus does not carry a bigger damage boost than Astral Fire, so the rogue has no advantage over the warlock with it.

I'm assuming the +1 to hit is coming from the Nimble Blade feat, which still only functions when the rogue has combat advantage. Combat advantage is not automatic, so while this is pure advantage to the rogue, it is not constant.

Remember that the mighty Torturous Strike build requires ability score allocation(usually involving race choice), build choice, and two feats. The warlock opposing it requires only ability score allocation, and so has some pact options and two spare feats.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy. That's what makes it fun. We can spin theory machines all day on this forum, I am just telling you that a warlock's damage is less then the rogue and that the rogue is consequently a better class to play for the striker role. That's my take anyway.

I can see that you're telling me that a warlock's damage is less than a rogue's damage, and I have my doubts. I hope that by sharing my doubts and spinning theory machines, I can learn something.

Thanks to this thread, I have learned that Torturous Strike is an incredibly powerful ability and that a warlock needs only to damage a target to inflict curse damage, rather than hitting, as a rogue must for Sneak Attack.

I hope this thread continues to share enlightenment.

 

[theNater]

Divine Challenge damage is more reliably inflicted than the second burst form HR or DR.

One of the main points I'm trying to make is that the second bursts from Hellish Rebuke and Dire Radiance are not as difficult to inflict as people suggest.

In particular, Hellish Rebuke and Dire Radiance can be triggered by the actions of the warlock's allies, while Divine Challenge must be triggered by an enemy.

 

[Aservan]

Actually you can only use the curse damage on a damage roll not on something that does auto damage like the fire from the flames. So on a miss you do 5 damage period.

Countering that the warlock can up his defense with the feats he doesn't use on upping his offense doesn't have much to do with the argument that he is a poor striker. He is not a defender. His job isn't to get missed a lot (though that is important) it's to cut down the bad guys, however he can (status effects, tactical shifts, massive damage, etc.).

As we all know the feats for casters to up offense are pretty lacking. Maybe that's the way it has to be. I dunno. That's a separate discussion. Right now the rogue and ranger have the tools to be effective in their roles. Warlock has some nifty combos I will grant, but they don't quite kick him into the good at his role category.

Combat advantage is significantly easier to get then a tactically smart Prime shot. Getting flanked as a 'lock is a bad idea (feylocks can get out easy sometimes though). All you need to flank is two characters. Rogues can easily take feats that let them avoid OAs. They can shift more then one square. They can knock people down, daze, stun, and simply gain combat advantage from their own attacks.

Warlocks could take the feats that help avoid OAs, but the only an Infernal 'lock wants to be close to the fight and he wants to get hit by your reasoning.

Even with Temp HP trading 1d6+stat for 1d6+stat with the monsters is a bad idea. They have more HP then PCs do. And that is what you are suggesting when you say let the wizard blast you to trigger hellish rebuke. I also find that to be a very munchkin solution to the problem. Your warlock is not going to be Ok with the wizard after the fight when he has been repeatedly blasted by him! Friendly fire ISN'T!

 

[bardolph]

One of the main points I'm trying to make is that the second bursts from Hellish Rebuke and Dire Radiance are not as difficult to inflict as people suggest.

In particular, Hellish Rebuke and Dire Radiance can be triggered by the actions of the warlock's allies, while Divine Challenge must be triggered by an enemy.

Kind of. Dire Radiance only triggers on the creature's turn, so it's still up to the creature whether or not it burns twice.

Hellish Rebuke is easier to trigger, but once the Warlock starts running out of hit points he needs to back off.

It's also worth noting that, while Flames of Phegethos is a great (and flashy) power, Armor of Agathys can produce FAR more damage if used correctly. This goes a long way to making up ground on the Rogue.

How much damage can you get from the 1+INT square slide of Diabolic Grasp? These kinds of things are very difficult to quantify, which is why rogues look so great on paper, and Warlocks don't.

 

[theNater]

Actually you can only use the curse damage on a damage roll not on something that does auto damage like the fire from the flames. So on a miss you do 5 damage period.

Whether a damage roll is required is arguable, but that's a question for another thread. In either case, the warlock is doing significantly more damage than the rogue is if both miss, and about the same damage if both hit.

Countering that the warlock can up his defense with the feats he doesn't use on upping his offense doesn't have much to do with the argument that he is a poor striker. He is not a defender. His job isn't to get missed a lot (though that is important) it's to cut down the bad guys, however he can (status effects, tactical shifts, massive damage, etc.).

My point isn't so much that the warlock can use feats to increase defense as it is that the rogue must spend feats on offense to match the warlock. The rogue does have the option of using even more feats to surpass the warlock, but the rogue starts behind.

As we all know the feats for casters to up offense are pretty lacking. Maybe that's the way it has to be. I dunno. That's a separate discussion. Right now the rogue and ranger have the tools to be effective in their roles. Warlock has some nifty combos I will grant, but they don't quite kick him into the good at his role category.

What's the damage cutoff for "good at being a striker"? It can't be "more than a rogue", or only the ranger makes it. Is it "as much as a maxed out rogue"? If so, many rogues aren't good at being strikers.

Combat advantage is significantly easier to get then a tactically smart Prime shot. Getting flanked as a 'lock is a bad idea (feylocks can get out easy sometimes though). All you need to flank is two characters. Rogues can easily take feats that let them avoid OAs. They can shift more then one square. They can knock people down, daze, stun, and simply gain combat advantage from their own attacks.

Flanking requires a second character and an enemy in a flankable position. If the enemy is in a corner, or backs away from the party's melee combatants on his turn, the rogue cannot flank.

Warlocks can take feats that let them avoid opportunity attacks even more easily than rogues, what with having better unaugmented damage and all. They can teleport more than one square. They can knock people down, daze, stun, and provide combat advantage to the whole party.

Warlocks could take the feats that help avoid OAs, but the only an Infernal 'lock wants to be close to the fight and he wants to get hit by your reasoning.

Wanting to get hit once is not the same as wanting to get hit by all of the monsters. And an infernal warlock only wants to get hit after hitting with Hellish Rebuke, but may want to attack while in melee for other reasons.

Even with Temp HP trading 1d6+stat for 1d6+stat with the monsters is a bad idea. They have more HP then PCs do. And that is what you are suggesting when you say let the wizard blast you to trigger hellish rebuke. I also find that to be a very munchkin solution to the problem. Your warlock is not going to be Ok with the wizard after the fight when he has been repeatedly blasted by him! Friendly fire ISN'T!

A warlock who has as many temporary hit points as the wizard's stat bonus can trade 1d6+stat for 1d6. This is a reasonably good deal, as stat will often be towards the high end of the 1d6. And the warlock is probably not going to be too upset with the wizard if the blasts were requested for the purpose of triggering Hellish Rebuke.

If the wizard's just blasting the warlock 'cause it's funny, that's a whole different matter.

 

[theNater]

Kind of. Dire Radiance only triggers on the creature's turn, so it's still up to the creature whether or not it burns twice.

Good point, I had forgotten that about Dire Radiance.

Hellish Rebuke is easier to trigger, but once the Warlock starts running out of hit points he needs to back off.

True enough. Of course, a rogue running out of hit points may also need to back off from good sneak attack positions.

It's also worth noting that, while Flames of Phegethos is a great (and flashy) power, Armor of Agathys can produce FAR more damage if used correctly. This goes a long way to making up ground on the Rogue.

Another damage source that's hard to properly quantify! I tell ya, sometimes I think trying to carefully calculate damage is a waste of time.

Good thing it's fun.

How much damage can you get from the 1+INT square slide of Diabolic Grasp? These kinds of things are very difficult to quantify, which is why rogues look so great on paper, and Warlocks don't.

I'm going to go with about as much damage as the rogue gets from the cha square slide of Positioning Strike. I'm willing to call that one a tie if everybody else is.

 

[Danceofmasks]

More warlock pinball!
I like armor of agathys on a feylock. Ready an action to blat anyone who survives armor of agathys damage (okay, the trigger is dubious, but meh can be reworded to when a survivor attacks or moves), and abuse the initiative order to bounce around killing everyone.

After all, by RAW initiative order is actually fixed, and even those minions acting on the same initiative do so sequentially (and can swap order via delay).
So their actual order is the same as the previous turn until they do so.

Of course, the combo requires rod of corruption ..