It's still two chances of getting Quarry damage in, and you still add magic bonuses and the like to each arrow. But there are plenty of other threads about Twin Strike, I think.
Warlocks/Wizards at Attack Disadvantage due to no "proficiency" bonus?
- Thread starter moticon
- Start date
Ulthwithian
First Post
To echo those above me, the short answer is that they are not disadvantaged. Having said that, for some reason the first magic 'weapons' found were for the party Warlock and Wizard. At 2nd level, the Warlock has a to-hit against Ref equal to the Fighter/Cleric's to-hit against AC at 1st level. (+1 Implement, Hellfire Blood as 2nd level feat, 2nd level 'bump')
The straight up truth: Sort of.
Wizards not as much because they can attack so many targets with their at wills. Warlocks are more so. While it is true that non-AC defenses are lower they are not always lower and on the monsters you really want to hit (solos, leaders, brutes in your face) they often have at least one defense that is as good as AC or even better. Look at an Ogre Warhulk if you don't believe me.
The argument that warlocks also can attack a wide range of defenses also holds a little validity, but not as much as the designers would like. Here's the problem: a crappy roll always misses. Take the infernal warlock. He has two at wills that target reflex. He doesn't even have a choice in the matter so a clever player can't get around this. At low levels he has maybe one attack that can go after a different defense, possibly two. If he misses with those (remember players almost always have a 40%+ chance to miss) he is now out of luck and forced to go after Reflex or except making basic attacks with a weapon, where he can never match a rogue, ranger or defender for ass kicking.
Eldritch blast is in most ways a crappy long bow. It has: shorter range, No option for inaccurate long range, Does the same damage, is a wash for hitting as the long bow gets +2 to hit which mathematically means it hits just as often, and to top it off costs a precious at will power of which you can never get more. Every one either gets long bow to start or has to spend a feat at most. The long bow needs ammo which is a slight consolation, but it's not like arrows are gonna bust your character's budget.
So yeah at the moment the warlock is the crappiest of the strikers and if you are into balance not a good choice at all. You don't deal the damage of the other strikers nor do you have the options (feats) to match the weapon wielders yet. I hope that will change some when Arcane Power arrives.
Wizards not as much because they can attack so many targets with their at wills. Warlocks are more so. While it is true that non-AC defenses are lower they are not always lower and on the monsters you really want to hit (solos, leaders, brutes in your face) they often have at least one defense that is as good as AC or even better. Look at an Ogre Warhulk if you don't believe me.
The argument that warlocks also can attack a wide range of defenses also holds a little validity, but not as much as the designers would like. Here's the problem: a crappy roll always misses. Take the infernal warlock. He has two at wills that target reflex. He doesn't even have a choice in the matter so a clever player can't get around this. At low levels he has maybe one attack that can go after a different defense, possibly two. If he misses with those (remember players almost always have a 40%+ chance to miss) he is now out of luck and forced to go after Reflex or except making basic attacks with a weapon, where he can never match a rogue, ranger or defender for ass kicking.
Eldritch blast is in most ways a crappy long bow. It has: shorter range, No option for inaccurate long range, Does the same damage, is a wash for hitting as the long bow gets +2 to hit which mathematically means it hits just as often, and to top it off costs a precious at will power of which you can never get more. Every one either gets long bow to start or has to spend a feat at most. The long bow needs ammo which is a slight consolation, but it's not like arrows are gonna bust your character's budget.
So yeah at the moment the warlock is the crappiest of the strikers and if you are into balance not a good choice at all. You don't deal the damage of the other strikers nor do you have the options (feats) to match the weapon wielders yet. I hope that will change some when Arcane Power arrives.
Holy Bovine
First Post
The Wizard in our group does very well in a damage/effectiveness manner. He wipes out hordes (literally!) of minions allowing the rest of us to get to the tougher monsters. He has excellent battlefield control thanks to being able to create icy terrain and in general we would probably be hosed without him.
The Ranger deals the most damage of any character in the party on average with only the maul wielding warforged fighter coming close. Looking at the Warlock's powers and having built a few of them I just cannot see how the warlock can keep up to either a wizard or ranger in damage and overall effectiveness. I'm dissappointed that the Warlock seems so weak in comparison to event he wizard. I expected them to be hard hitting mofos.
The Ranger deals the most damage of any character in the party on average with only the maul wielding warforged fighter coming close. Looking at the Warlock's powers and having built a few of them I just cannot see how the warlock can keep up to either a wizard or ranger in damage and overall effectiveness. I'm dissappointed that the Warlock seems so weak in comparison to event he wizard. I expected them to be hard hitting mofos.
Rith the Wanderer
First Post
I agree with to an extent. If its a brute, don't target its fortitude because you are very unlikely to hit. But, if its a brute, target non-AC, non-fortitude defense, because it is going to be ridiculously low. Look at an Ogre Warhulk if you don't believe me (hitting on a 7+ on average for both Ref and Will). So this does not hurt the casters very much.
However, I think it does make things a little screwy, in that a spell targeting fortitude is pretty much just worse than a spell targeting the other two. I think this is probably unintended and a little dumb. There are some really, really good spells targeting fortitude (Thunderlance=Encounter Stun, freaking awesome) but if you take those spells for your character, realize that you won't be targeting brutes with them, pretty much ever.
Rapier is a superior weapon, so you have to spend a feat to get it. With the same feat, a warlock can take one of the feats for +1 damage with two elements. Your rogue could get the same benefit by simply taking weapon focus (short sword).
Dire Radiance and Hellish Rebuke add your ability modifier again when the target takes the extra damage -- 1d6+Con initial and 1d6+Con secondary adds up to double damage.
Eldritch Blast is indeed less than double, but it's still superior damage-wise to the rogue's at-wills.
If you want to sneak attack very often, you'll have to get in melee, which gives the warlock a range advantage. Backstabber is a feat that has no real analogue for the warlock, I admit, but there are similar abilities (such as Hellfire Blood for an infernal-pact tiefling).
Rogues can't use their rogue powers with a longbow or shortbow no matter how many feats the spend. They're limited to a sling (1d6), light blade (1d4 for a throwing knife; 1d6 for shuriken), or crossbow. They're proficient with only hand crossbows by default (1d6) and must spend a feat for a full sized crossbow (1d8), which puts it in the same category as the rapier.
Last edited:
Jonathan Drain
First Post
Fighters are meant to have that +2 or +3 bonus because they no longer gain higher Base Attack.
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content