Starlock: AC too low to be playable?

[Ryujin]

Keep moving at least 3 squares per turn to maintain concealment, via Shadow Walk. Try to get some cover. Pick up a Cloak of Distortion, then keep some distance.

I'm more interested in how the rest of the party had 23+ AC. As a 7th level Warlock with +2 leather and an 18 INT, I've only got a 21.

 

[DonAdam]

You could use the Starlock article from Dragon to let him retcon to all Cha-based attack powers, freeing up those stat points for Int.

The Cloak of Distortion is also awesome for 'locks.

 

[Ryujin]

Darned right it is! If nothing else, it makes the opposition waste area effect "depth charge" powers to try and pick off one lone character, out in the battle's boonies.

 

[MrAlgothi]

Even if you're going to play star, I think you're just hurting yourself in the long run if you try and take both con and cha powers. Take a look over the powers, decide which you like more, and take star powers for that stat, with some leftovers in infernal or fey to make up the numbers. Problem solved. My main complaint with star is you don't get to choose which stat to use with your pact at will.

I completely agree with Diirk here. If you try to play a dual attack stat class you have to realize that you will be hurting in some area later on because of it. For Warlocks INT is a very important stat, AC and secondary power effects all rely on Int and sacrificing it for more versatility in power choices is probably not a good idea.

 

[Fede]

I agree, star pact warlocks should be treated like other "dual-primary-stat" classes like cleric, paladin etc., picking cha or con and leaving int as a secondary.
The problem with this approach is, as Diirk pointed out, that you can't choose the attack stat of dire radiance. I really don't understand why they didn't make it like eldritch blast.

 

[Akaiku]

The problem is that enemies have bows occasionally. No int or dex means you ref will be low as well, which most aoe's are. If the gm is having every monster ignore the striker in the back forever, then no, you don't need any defense ever, but in the event that the enemies want to eat the squishy guy in the back instead of useless wailing on guys with +4 or more higher ac, you will have problems.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Any suggestions involving the warlock's use of weapons isn't cool, because the most interesting things going for warlocks are the tactical combinations opened by double rods.

I was partial to using a Rod of Reaving as my implement with a +1 Rod of Corruption in my off-hand; the Rod of Corruption's effects don't scale with enhancement, so there's no need to replace it, and between the two you can wipe out pretty much all the minions in an encounter as a free action. (Curse one, it takes damage equal to enhancement bonus from the Rod of Reaving, it dies, you sacrifice the pact boon to instead curse everybody within 5 squares... and they all immediately take damage equal to your Rod of Reaving's enhancement bonus...)

 

[Saeviomagy]

The problem is that enemies have bows occasionally. No int or dex means you ref will be low as well, which most aoe's are. If the gm is having every monster ignore the striker in the back forever, then no, you don't need any defense ever, but in the event that the enemies want to eat the squishy guy in the back instead of useless wailing on guys with +4 or more higher ac, you will have problems.

Unfortunately this is a silly scenario too: The back rower is not all that squishy.

The OP says that most of his guys are rocking ~23 ac. The starlock is sitting at 18.

With concealment, that's 20. With cover from the front rowers (or even just from cover) that's 22. Add in appropriate marking, and you're on 24. The warlock is no longer the squishiest party member at that point. As a ranged combatant, there will be points where improved cover is available, for another +3.

If someone is getting butchered by ranged attacks, it's because they're out in the open. If they don't actually have a reason to be out in the open, it's their own fault that they get butchered.

 

[Malicea]

I agree, star pact warlocks should be treated like other "dual-primary-stat" classes like cleric, paladin etc., picking cha or con and leaving int as a secondary.
The problem with this approach is, as Diirk pointed out, that you can't choose the attack stat of dire radiance. I really don't understand why they didn't make it like eldritch blast.

Actually, having two primary stats (in different defense categories) is fine. However, one of them should be in the AC group, or the class should come with heavy-armor proficiency. The 18 Str 18 Cha Dragonborn paladin, and 18 Str 18 Wis Longtooth Shifter cleric are fine, as the heavy armor covers for having low Dex and Int. Defense-wise, a lazer cleric picking Wis and Cha is in fact worse off than a balanced Str/Wis cleric. The 'Starlock is the only PHB class build that faces this low-AC problem - a problem that can only be addressed with a decent starting Str and heavy armor feats.

 

[Eldorian]

Actually, having two primary stats (in different defense categories) is fine. However, one of them should be in the AC group, or the class should come with heavy-armor proficiency. The 18 Str 18 Cha Dragonborn paladin, and 18 Str 18 Wis Longtooth Shifter cleric are fine, as the heavy armor covers for having low Dex and Int. Defense-wise, a lazer cleric picking Wis and Cha is in fact worse off than a balanced Str/Wis cleric. The 'Starlock is the only PHB class build that faces this low-AC problem - a problem that can only be addressed with a decent starting Str and heavy armor feats.

Having two primary stats and one secondary stat isn't fine, tho. Paladins have this problem, they have crappy wisdom by this route.

Clerics and rangers work OK, going str wis for cleric and str dex for ranger. What the melee ranger loses in wisdom he makes up in having the option to pick up a bow. And str cleric powers don't use charisma as far as I remember.