What To Do With the Warlock?

[airwalkrr]

I find the warlock is both the best and worst class ever designed outside the 11 core classes. Why? It mostly has to do with certain invocations, which are not overpowered by themselves, but become troublesome when allowed an unlimited number of times per day. I have no problem with a warlock being able to use eldritch blast without limit. But baleful utterance causes problems. The ability to basically destory any nonmagical barrier at will is quite disruptive to a campaign, more so than a wand of shatter, which is tempered by the fact that using the wand costs money. Devour magic is also problematic although it can be seen as a counterbalance to the fact that long-duration spells are becoming more and more common (see Spell Compendium). Noxious blast is another one as it is practically a one-hit kill against creatures other than undead, constructs, and plants.

I think if there were some limit, even just a roleplaying limit, on the warlock's abilities, something that encourages the warlock not to just toss around invocations like they were going out of style, then the warlock would be a great class. But when a warlock can do all of these things at will, it has the potential to disrupt the game. Some of this is based on personal experience having seen a warlock played up to 8th level. Thankfully, we never reached all of the potential problems, but I certainly got tired of baleful utterance.

Suppose all warlocks have an innate sense that calling on their powers draws power from dark forces and by doing this too frequently, they are likely to attract the attention of a powerful outsider (who is likely displeased at his essence being siphoned). Say that everytime a warlock uses a specific invocation more times per day than his Charisma modifier that there is a small chance (maybe 5%) that a powerful fiend is angered. This doesn't keep the warlock from doing his invocations, but it does encourage him to only use them when they are appropriate and not shatter every single door in his way.

 

[Hammerhead]

Warlocks are weak. Oh boy, infinite shatters on nonmagical objects. Compared to my friend the Power Attacking fighter/barbarian with an adamantine greatsword, that's nothing.

 

[Stalker0]

Warlocks are weak. Oh boy, infinite shatters on nonmagical objects. Compared to my friend the Power Attacking fighter/barbarian with an adamantine greatsword, that's nothing.

As he said, there's plenty of ways to break things in dnd. Shatter can do it faster, but its certainly not the only way to take down a door.

 

[Nifft]

... but I certainly got tired of baleful utterance.

But that's the whole point of the Warlock. If you're going to get tired of him using a power, it's not right to have it in your setting. That's rather like getting tired of a Rogue who uses Sneak Attack in combat -- it's his one and only trick. Of course it's what he does. He likes to feel useful and cool.

Cheers, -- N

 

[airwalkrr]

Warlocks are weak. Oh boy, infinite shatters on nonmagical objects. Compared to my friend the Power Attacking fighter/barbarian with an adamantine greatsword, that's nothing.

You demonstrate that you clearly lack an understanding that there are more dimensions to the game than simply combat. In battle, I admit the warlock is not terribly impressive. But I raised no qualms about the warlock in combat. While I don't believe he is weak in combat, he is by no means capable of dealing massive damage like a fighter or barbarian. That should be the fighter or barbarian's job.

Unlimited shatter created a disruption in my previous campaign because it was not a simple "fight everyone you meet" affair. There were puzzles, tricks, and traps, and the warlock managed to bypass a lot of them by simply shattering every object in sight before entering a room. There was nothing to stop him from doing this (the other players didn't care as long as he didn't shatter anything valuable). A barbarian with an adamantine weapon could not have accomplished what the warlock did from as far a distance, nor could he have done so with as much precision (it is hard to smash only the lock of a door when you are wielding a greatsword). I use published adventures often because I do not have time to craft my own adventures. So it is not a simple matter of adjusting my encounters to account for the warlock's abilities.

 

[airwalkrr]

But that's the whole point of the Warlock. If you're going to get tired of him using a power, it's not right to have it in your setting. That's rather like getting tired of a Rogue who uses Sneak Attack in combat -- it's his one and only trick. Of course it's what he does. He likes to feel useful and cool.

Apples and oranges. A rogue can't sneak attack all the time. Some creatures are immune and sometimes flanking is not easy to accomplish. A warlock with baleful utterance can shatter just about anything. Besides that, I would hardly say a rogue's "one and only trick" is sneak attack. I think what you mean to say it is his one and only damaging trick. In the meantime, while not in combat, the rogue has 8 skill points per level and a host of special abilities. He is not exactly devoid of tricks besides sneak attack. Once again, it appears you are viewing the warlock solely in terms of his combat potential. I am talking about the whole game, which in my campaigns is usually no more than 30-50% combat. Few campaigns are pure hack-n-slash affairs.

 

[Stalker0]

To me, its just a case of realizing certain encounters go out the window with a warlock. Its like hiding an evil guy from a paladin, putting a pit obstacle against a monk with a lot of jump, etc. The advantage for you is that the warlock's abilities don't change much. Its not like a wizard or cleric that could throw a new spell at you out of the blue. You know what the warlock can do, and with some more experience you can develop or choose encounters that will work better with him in the party.

But if its just that one invocation and you just can't feel you can do anything about it, ask the warlock to swap it out for something else. But don't weaken it, its one of the few invocations he has.

 

[XCorvis]

... I use published adventures often because I do not have time to craft my own adventures. So it is not a simple matter of adjusting my encounters to account for the warlock's abilities.

Simple fixes:
Make more things explode in his face when he shatters them (ie traps) so he's less willing to blow stuff up. If the adventure says "Characters who touch the vase trigger the trap," then consider damaging the vase to be triggering the trap.
Make sure the PC blows up something important so he thinks twice about doing it next time.
Stop giving XP for overcoming traps/puzzles in this manner, as there is no danger or challenge to the PCs.
Limit the range, maybe to touch.

Best solution, IMO:
Ask the player to cut it out because it's not fun. (However, your players may not be so interested in the puzzle/trap game. If it's not fun for them they will attempt to bypass it as fast as possible. In that case let him keep blowing stuff up because it moves the game along to the parts they like.)

 

[Nifft]

I think what you mean to say it is his one and only damaging trick. In the meantime, while not in combat, the rogue has 8 skill points per level and a host of special abilities. [ ... ] I am talking about the whole game, which in my campaigns is usually no more than 30-50% combat. Few campaigns are pure hack-n-slash affairs.

That's true, and that is what I meant.

But what I'm comparing is the Rogue in-combat to the Warlock out-of-combat. The Rogue has lots of skill points, lots of great class skills, and bonuses against traps. He's an out-of-combat monster.

The Warlock has a few Invocations, most of which are focused on combat. If he picks one that's useful out-of-combat, he's giving up hack-n-slash potential.

I think it's fair to compare the Rogue's few in-combat tricks to the Warlock's out-of-combat tricks. Like you said, a Rogue can't count on being able to sneak attack all opponents. Some are immune, others can't be flanked every round, or whatever. Similarly, some obstacles should be immune to being shattered... they could be magical, or have magical components to them. The lock may have no hit points of its own -- you could consider the door to be a single object instead. (That's what we did for time hop, a similarly effective psionic power.)

Consider some situational limits: shatter is loud, and sometimes the party wants to open a door without making a lot of noise. This is similar to how some rounds, a Rogue can't flank a foe or catch a foe flat-footed.

Shatter destroys a door, and doesn't allow it to be closed again. If the party has pursuit, they may be better served by NOT leaving a trail of open, broken doors.

And of course, consider that the players may be playing how they want to play. If they really dislike puzzles, there's little you can do to make them enjoy spending time on puzzles...

Cheers, -- N

 

[Crothian]

Nothing needs to be done to the Warlock. Either a DM can handle it or not, and if you can't then just get rid of the class don't restrict it's abilities.

How does destroying everything in sight get one past all puzzles, tricks, and traps?