Proposal: Warlock At-Wills

[Ozymandias79]

You have me convinced. I am OK with the new proposal.

Ozy

 

[garyh]

The new proposal seems okay with me. I'll wait to vote a bit to see if someone points out something I'm missing.

One thing that strikes me is a human infernal warlock could take Eldritch Blast and Eldritch Strike, then Dire Radiance for his extra. Not sure if that's a problem...

I'd also be open to considering Dire Radiance having a choice of Con/Cha. I'm not a fan of they way the star pact is designed, though. It's like they took the worst of a V shaped class and wrapped it into a single class feature.

 

[elecgraystone]

One thing that strikes me is a human infernal warlock could take Eldritch Blast and Eldritch Strike, then Dire Radiance for his extra. Not sure if that's a problem...

I'd have no issue adding that humans must take either Eldritch Blast or Eldritch Strike AND their pact at will if it becomes a sticking point. Those three powers ARE pretty cool together though...

I'm not a fan of they way the star pact is designed, though.

No doubt. Out of the boat it was really bad IMO. After the dragon issue it's better, but it could still use some help. There IS a few powers in the arcane book too although for the most part they get no love in that book.

 

[covaithe]

One of the things that's turning me off about this proposal is how completely opposite to the warlock's fluff it is. A warlock gets his powers by making a pact with something. The fact that choosing a pact dictates one of his powers is part of the bargain. It's like a cleric complaining that he can't take Channel Divinity powers from other gods.

I'd actually be more open to allowing warlocks a choice of something else besides Eldritch Blast.

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

It's like a cleric complaining that he can't take Channel Divinity powers from other gods.

Er, I'm pretty sure that in L4W a cleric doesn't need to worship a specific god to get a certain Channel Divinity. There's nothing about it in the Character Creation guide, and the wording in the wiki makes it sound like the matchings are more suggestions than anything else.

 

[Don Incognito]

I don't like it, but that's mostly because I'm not a fan of houserule class "fixes" in general.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

One of the things that's turning me off about this proposal is how completely opposite to the warlock's fluff it is. A warlock gets his powers by making a pact with something. The fact that choosing a pact dictates one of his powers is part of the bargain. It's like a cleric complaining that he can't take Channel Divinity powers from other gods.

I'd actually be more open to allowing warlocks a choice of something else besides Eldritch Blast.

Well, the updated proposal pretty much works the way you suggest - your pact partner offers you 3 powers, the two generic Eldritch powers and the pact-specific one, and you get to pick two. (Although to really follow the fluff, a human with 3 at-wills would be required to take all 3 and not take another pact's at-will. That would mean, AFAIK, the only way to get an at-will outside of your pact would be to wait for Paragon and take Twofold Pact.)

Here's another thought: what if a Warlock was allowed to take Pact Initiate for a separate pact? Then they'd get training in one extra skill from the Warlock list, qualify for two pacts worth of paragon paths, and the other pact's at-will as an encounter power. (And to be really precise, you would count as your original pact for all powers, and you'd need to use a power-swap feat when learning a power to get the special bonus for the second pact instead. But that would be confusig.) It would be like Twofold Pact light, but available at Heroic. (I don't think this actually addresses the proposal at all, I'm just throwing it out there.)

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Although to really follow the fluff, a human with 3 at-wills would be required to take all 3 and not take another pact's at-will.

Nooooo!

 

[elecgraystone]

First off, sorry about the length. As I made this post people kept replying and I added comments to them and then MORE people commented...

Thanks for all the feedback guys!

One of the things that's turning me off about this proposal is how completely opposite to the warlock's fluff it is.

Honestly, the fluff is meaningless. Look the Sorcerers. From their fluff, you'd think if anyone HAD to take powers it'd be them. But do they? Take a Storm Magic one. 'The raw and unbridled fury of storm powers your spells.' However none of your powers have to be storm ones.

How about the others. Dragon: 'The elemental power of dragons flows through you, infusing your spells with draconic strength.' Chaos: 'You draw your spells from the entropic forces of the Elemental Chaos.' Cosmic: 'Just as the constellations move around the sky in a steady, imperturbable cadence, your spells are strong and unshakable, and tied to energies that can outlast all others.'

Now look at warlocks. They form a pact. Which sounds easier to modify. Something that's in your blood or a contract? And remember, it's with beings called mysterious, amoral and capricious. Do they sound like beings that do things by rote and ALWAYS give out the same powers? Every warlock of the same type ALWAYS forms the exact same pact? Who makes the pact forms for all these godly beings? Look at Fey; you have 'primitive earth spirits, capricious wood, sky, or water spirits, and incarnations of seasons or natural forces who roam the faerie realm like wild gods.' Do you think they all got the memo that every fey pact is 100% the same?

Add to that the fact that after at-wills, your pact giver couldn't give a damn what powers you pick. You MUST take this one power but the other 15 do what you want? If the pact giver can give you Eldritch blast, Eldrich Strike and your pact at will, why should it matter to 'him' which two you pick? Mind you that humans prove that all pact givers have access to ALL warlock at wills, which was the basis for my first proposal...

TwoHeadsBarking makes a good point with the Channel Divinity feats. Here pretty much anyone can pick any of them and even in a normal game you can pick the feat THEN your god. The only limits are roleplaying and alignment. Not a very good example of 'forced' power picks.

I don't like it, but that's mostly because I'm not a fan of houserule class "fixes" in general.

We are already talking about a 'fix' with the inclusion of the Eldritch Strike power. By RAW only humans and 1/2 elves can take it. All I'm asking is that the houserule 'fix' be expanded to allow the replacing of the pact power in addition to the eldritch blast that seems to be agreed upon in the other thread.

what if a Warlock was allowed to take Pact Initiate for a separate pact?

If we went this route, I'd suggest doing it differently. Make it a power-swap feat that swaps your starting pact at-will with that of another pact. Or get both pact at wills but you have to pick one and only change it after a rest. With the second option, you could have your pact abilities based on your current pact at will [IE:you have eyebite you are counted as fey, you switch to Dire Radiance and you are counted as star]. Switching pact abilities could get a little confusing though. Call it Two Masters.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Ok, let's talk balance.

Your starting pact dictates your At-Will and your Pact Boon. In theory, that means a more powerful boon could be balanced by a less powerful at-will. Allowing people to pick both would let them pair the most powerful at-will with the mort powerful boon.

So, does anyone think any of the other At-Will's are as wimpy as Hellish Rebuke? (I'd say no: Eyebite is pretty awesome, and Dire Radiance can be good in a lot more situations than Hellish Rebuke is.) Ok, so if Hellish Rebuke is the least powerful, is the Infernal Pact's boon more powerful than the others? Misty Step is also pretty awesome. Fate of the Void is pretty good. Are thp more powerful than a +1 to hit, or teleport 3?