What would fix warlocks?

[CapnZapp]

I like Ulorian's approach best.

Adding a bunch of feats just strays wildly into unknown home-brew country, and if you add more than one or two, that probably just makes the class overpowered.

Remember: WotC feels the class is okay; and it probably is: I suspect it's just harder to maximize its potential compared to the damage-focused Strikers.

I further suspect that if it had been labeled a Controller, people wouldn't complain and perhaps even feel it was awesome ("it does nearly as much damage as a true Striker!").

Some solution allowing the Warlock to get past its MAD seems much easier and much cleaner. Like Ulorian's suggestion... though I agree a solution that allowed the Warlock to focus on either Con or Cha while still getting access to the other half of the powers would be even better.

 

[keterys]

warlocks are behind sorcerors in single target damage by precisely the amount that giving them a d6->d8 striker feat would fix. While there is a rod that does the same thing, it's not a good thing to tie an entire class to using a single item.

An easy counterexample to this theory:

A warlock casts Arms of Hadar and hits two targets. He deals 1d8+5 to one of them and 1d8+1d6+5 to another, for a grand total of (9.5+13) = 22.5 average damage. Being a striker gave him 3.5 damage that round from curse.

A sorcerer casts Flame Spiral and hits two targets. He deals 1d10+5+4 to both of them, for 29 average damage. Further, at the start of their turn they take another 1d6+4 damage each, for 15 more average damage. 44 total dealt. Being a striker gave him 16 damage that round from adding his stat to damage rolls.

Although, to be honest, the sorcerer will probably also have weapon focus while the warlock doesn't. And soon enough also dual wield a staff of ruin which the warlock can't... those would add another 12 damage to the sorcerer example above.

It's a lot more than just the warlock lacking a feat. It's a core class feature and multiple feats.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have two simple house rules regarding the warlock:

1. A feat that boosts curse dice to d8s -- why the warlock was left out of this members only club in the first place is beyond me.
2. And I charismafy all starlock powers. Why starlock powers are split between Cha and Con is also beyond me, but whatever, I don't mind cleaning up too many of WotC's messes.

 

[keterys]

Better off Conify-ing all Starlock powers, I'd think...

I'd like to see a version of Warlock that was just all Con-based for attack... letting you pick from Int or Cha for specialty (Scourge or Deceptive, say) with some notable and cool benefits for Cha to counterbalance the AC, would be nice.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

As a loyal and continual Warlock player, I would argue that each Pact is its own role and should be treated as such. I like the earlier of idea of modifying the Curse by pact, doing a minor version of other roles' schticks:

The Starlock is a controller - Dire Radiance is a movement-denying effect and the vast majority of Star powers are debuffs. A Starlock's curse should do something like prevent the target from shifting if they are granting combat advantage. I would also give them access to orbs as an implement.

The Infernalock is a Defender - it gains temporary HP and deals damage when it is damaged. The Infernal Curse should mark the target if the 'Lock also has Prime Shot. It should also get at least Hide proficiency if not Chain.

The Vestige Pact is a Leader - Eyes of the Vestige is about buffing and giving saving throws. The Vestige curse should grant Cha modifier temporary hit points to another character that drops the cursed foe.
It should also get better armor.

The Dark Pact is an artillery Striker through and through. Damage on damage on damage. The Dark curse should give the target -1 to saving throws to synergize with all that ongoing damage. Maybe scale to -2 and -3 at 11 and 21. That's about all I'd do - the Dark Pact is about in the same league as the other Strikers so long as the target can't save.

The Feylock is.. I don't really know what the Feylock is. It turns invisible, it teleports, it makes its enemies attack each other... but then sometimes it deals extra damage or grants uses of healing surges... it's almost a Lurker, I think. The Fey Curse should either give the character a +2 bonus to hit its own allies (cornercase unless you're a Feylock; would also be fun synergy with some Swordmage powers) or do something like drop the foe's initiative by 2. I would also give it total concealment if it moves its full Speed on a turn. I'm admittedly a little less sure of the balance issues with this build over the other 4.

 

[keterys]

Feylock getting a bonus to damage as long as it had concealment or total concealment to the target might be interesting...

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Better off Conify-ing all Starlock powers, I'd think...

I'd like to see a version of Warlock that was just all Con-based for attack... letting you pick from Int or Cha for specialty (Scourge or Deceptive, say) with some notable and cool benefits for Cha to counterbalance the AC, would be nice.

Isn't that what infernalocks do? Not that I have anything in particular against constifying starlock powers; I just charismafied them because Doomsayer powers are Cha-based.

 

[keterys]

Yes, and when last I played a warlock, 70% of the powers were Charisma-based. Because of the Dark Pact and all of the articles in Dragon focusing on Charisma, etc. So making all Starlock powers Con-based would brings things closer together.

Maybe the numbers are a bit different now, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmmm. After watching the guy playing the starlock in our game I'm somewhat puzzled about the whole notion that starlocks are underpowered.

1) There are PLENTY of powers keying off CON or CHA, especially with AP out. Focus on one of the two and don't worry about it. Sure you may be picking a few powers that don't have your pact rider, but frankly that isn't a huge big deal, plenty of their spells are perfectly adequate without the pact rider.

2) I'm just not seeing a massive difference in damage output. Its a bit lower than other strikers and nobody in our group has played a sorcerer so I don't have any comment on that specific comparison, but decent damage coupled with some fairly nice control effects seems nice enough.

3) Defenses... Hmmmm, well, this guy's AC is 4 points behind the rogue and 3 points behind the fighter and STR cleric, but one point AHEAD of the orbizard. Considering that he's concealed virtually 100% of the time his defenses are nothing to complain about. Aside from an occasional situation where he's gotten jumped by a monster the character has taken squat for damage. In fact it was a running joke in our group that the character would reach 30th level and never be bloodied. The other night a Gelatinous Cube came up behind the party and engulfed him. With his way high con this was only marginally threatening and he was never even close to bloodied, the cleric ran over hit the thing with a healing strike and he was never even close to seriously hurt.

Yeah, starlocks don't seem to excel at any one thing. They have mediocre defenses, modest damage output, modest single target control, etc. but the character isn't weak anywhere and always makes a major contribution in combat. His shtick is steady damage output round after round. The rogue and the fighter will roll out some really startling damage output some rounds, but they do almost diddly other rounds and then there are the times they can't get to melee with the target or its insubstantial or flying or etc. None of this bothers the 'lock, he just blasts away with EB or DR, and regularly drops in a really well placed tactical Hunger of Hadar which can easily turn a battle.

A feat for d8 damage would be OK, but I think its mostly a waste. Consider, he's already got an implement that jacks his curse damage to d8. He could burn a feat instead for that, but there are plenty of other feats he can really use instead to crank to-hit, lower saves, and all that good stuff. Not to mention throwing a slot or two into better armor!

So I can't say for the other pacts, but starlock IMHO is simply not gimped. Its a kind of funny class that you have to resist the natural temptation to split your prime stat on. But if you do build it reasonably well, the character is great, it just doesn't excel at ONE specific thing. I suspect the other pacts are similar. Its not easy to explain WHY the warlock is good, it just IS good. I think its that class you really don't want to have someone run right off the first day they play 4e though. The builds on them are a little odd and the guy playing mine had to rework the character a couple times at first to get it right. I know one thing, the party would sooner part with the rogue or the wizard than the warlock.

 

[Saeviomagy]

An easy counterexample to this theory:
...

Does the sorceror really add his bonus to ongoing damage? Seriously, wizards need to realise that static bonuses need to be limited to 1/round across the board, because otherwise they are really unbalanced. Thankfully with some of the recent stuff, it looks like they might get it, and hopefully that will mean we get an errata soon.

Additionally my original quote was

...are behind sorcerors in single target damage by precisely the amount that...

So the fact that he's applying the damage to two targets is irrelevant.