The Warlock - How has it played?

[Crothian]

Smell the brain fart? If not, look back at Ozmar's post. Rich's little formula falls apart the second you factor in that D&D isn't measured entirely in combat rounds. The point of a lot of obstacles is not to kill the PC's, but rather to force them to expend resources, or to make them do things the hard way for fear of consuming a resource prematurely. The warlock can throw a lot of that out the window.

The Warlock, and many of the things that get produced outside the core rules are not really made for beginners or people that are not good DMs and players. One of the big failures of D&D is they never tell you how to use all the options, they throw them at you and expect you to be able to use them with little problem.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I think the ideal way to circumvent that issue would be to replace limited uses with a built-in potential for backlash with the more abuse-prone invocations (the sending invocation is a good example). Then it's back to being a matter of tactical resource management, but of a kind all its own.

Warlock's Call: Use sending as the spell, but risk damage from recipient.

Just amp that up a bit.

 

[Felon]

The Warlock, and many of the things that get produced outside the core rules are not really made for beginners or people that are not good DMs and players. One of the big failures of D&D is they never tell you how to use all the options, they throw them at you and expect you to be able to use them with little problem.

Well-said. Monte Cook had a good (if brief) line-of-sight article on that.

 

[Crothian]

Well-said. Monte Cook had a good (if brief) line-of-sight article on that.

Now, if only people would stop telling us it is there and actually try to tell people how to handle it.....

I've noticed this to be a problem in general with some designers (not referrring to Monte here) they make nice intelligent posts on boards or in life journals and they say things that are wrong in gaming. But they never try to fix them.

 

[Felon]

I think Monte tells it like it is. You don't "fix it" except by learning form your mistakes and doing better the next go-round.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

well-reasoned argument regarding resource consumption

OK, even given all that, it strikes me that the warlock is actually kind of weak. None of his abilities seem to get anywhere near to being as useful or versatile as spells that a wizard or sorcerer of equal level have access to. Certainly those spells are finite, but are varied enough to get a wizard or sorcerer out of situations that might stymie a warlock. I like the warlock, but the class seems more viable for NPCs.

A thought occurred to me: when it comes to resource expenditure, what about the fighter? His abilities are, essentially, unlimited in use, though usable only in specific situations (combat, of course). The resources he has - hit points, ammunition, etc. - are elements shared by other classes. How does the warlock and his abilities differ from this? Not arguing; I'm genuinely curious about the warlock's potential.

 

[Crothian]

I think Monte tells it like it is. You don't "fix it" except by learning form your mistakes and doing better the next go-round.

WEll, they could include way to incorperate it into the game, warnings that it might be complex and not to be used by ever gamer, ect. It is not so much about fixing it as it is about helping people use them easier.

 

[Endur]

Warlock vs. Ranger (Archer)

My personal opinion is that the closest relative to the Warlock is the Ranger with the archery weapon path.

Both the Warlock and the Ranger/Archer attack their enemies from range.

Both have other abilities besides combat; the Warlock has invocations; the Ranger has spellcasting, favored enemies, an animal companion, lots of skills, and special abilities.

The Warlock's Eldritch Blast gets more powerful with level and all it needs to hit is a touch attack.

The Ranger's archery rate of fire per round increases with level. The ranger needs to hit the full armor class of the target, but his damage also increases with level.

I think a high level Ranger will be more dangerous in combat than a high level warlock.

The Ranger also has higher saves and higher hit points. Both classes wear light armor.

 

[Felon]

OK, even given all that, it strikes me that the warlock is actually kind of weak. None of his abilities seem to get anywhere near to being as useful or versatile as spells that a wizard or sorcerer of equal level have access to.

Well, the stuff he can do that imitates a sorc/wiz spell is actually pretty competitive with the actual spells--chilling tentacles, for instance, is actually better than EBT since it also deals the cold damage as well (of course, the warlock doesn't get that until a few levels after the other guy get EBT, but that's rather beside the point at hand).

But yes, it's true the warlock is not powerful in any sense of the word. However, an ability doesn't have to be powerful to be disruptive to gameplay. In fact, think about it: when you aren't among the powerful, you sort of have an increased incentive to figure out ways to stretch your abilities as far as possible if you ever want to have your moment in the spotlight. Ozmar's D-door example is pretty exemplary of what we're talking about.

Understand, I don't condemn players of the warlock for doing the stuff a lot of them do that annoys others. I think the class's design basically paints them into a corner. Certainly there can be a fine line between creativity and exploitation (generally speaking, it's creative when you surprise everyone, it's exploitive when everyone knows you're doing to do it for the umpteenth time).

A thought occurred to me: when it comes to resource expenditure, what about the fighter? His abilities are, essentially, unlimited in use, though usable only in specific situations (combat, of course). The resources he has - hit points, ammunition, etc. - are elements shared by other classes. How does the warlock and his abilities differ from this? Not arguing; I'm genuinely curious about the warlock's potential.

Well, if you're asking me, then I'd say Rich Baker's theory about combat rounds obviating the need to count spells per day holds up as long as you stick to abilities of an aggressive nature. If you're attacking people, you're in combat rounds (or soon will be). Once you're out of targets, you're effectively spent. Likewise, I wouldn't make any bones about the warlock's eldritch blast (without blast effects, it's about the same as firing a wand of scorching ray of equivalent level anyway). It's the invocations with out-of-combat applications that I am leary of.

I'd also say the fighter's hit points are a significant drain on party resources. He has more, therefore he needs more healing. And if the party's doing things right, he's the one getting banged on.

 

[satori01]

It does seem to me that almost every DM upset with the Warlock class , is cheesed off due to a what seems in the DM's mind an undue use of power to bypass some beloved obstacle.

I understand what Felon is saying, but think that even given "non combat" obstacles something of what Baker is saying is somewhat valid. In any given game session there are limited number of situations to use any given power.

An equivalent level sorcerer with Ddoor could likely duplicate a Warlock with Flee the Scene.

The fun part about DMing for a warlock is you can come up with some crazy scenarios, like a huge cavern of stone columns rising out of an inky black nothingness, with swirling winds that make flying dangerous, and force the parties Warlock to act as a Nightcrawler delivery service, and ferry the party to different stone columns. Take advantage of the Warlocks unlimited use.