What would fix warlocks?

Well, I showed that he got 4.5 more single target damage. He _also_ got 8 more damage to somewhere else.

And quickly has access to another +5 damage (or more) per hit that the warlock doesn't, base, for 14.5 single target, and 18 more to somewhere else...

And yes, damage bonuses should be rejiggered.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm arriving a bit late at the thread, but there's lots of interesting stuff to reply to, so I'll quote generously. Beware the wall of text...

To make this (barely) coherent, I've ordered conversations by topic rather than chronologically: first the warlock's low damage, then the Starlock's terrible AC, and finally the ability score distribution.

Issue 1 - Low damage

(...) a feat to bump up their damage from a d6's to d8's
would clash with several magical items (...) the simplest approach is to give a fixed damage bonus.
Dooming Curse (...)
This works, but is slightly weak. Warlocks need strong damage boosts. I'd give it something extra, like this:

Agonizing Curse
Requirements: Warlock, Warlock's Curse class feature
Benefit: Increase your Warlock's Curse damage by 1 per curse damage die.
When you score a critical hit against a cursed enemy, you deal additional damage equal to your Warlock's Curse extra damage. (This extra damage is not automatically maximum damage)


Add {ability} modifier damage
That, on the other hand, would be too strong. They would be getting as much damage as sorcerers, plus the curse bonus.
Change curse (...) so they can do AoE more respectably like the sorcerer.
I like AoE striking as a sorcerer niche. Warlocks seem a lot more focused towards single target attacks, anyway.

Prime Shot giving +5 damage at 11th level makes a big difference. Could make that part of the base class or a heroic feat.
Granting extra damage through Prime Shot is a great solution, and it really helps to make the feature more relevant. However, I always thought the Called Shot feat to be rather overpowered (+5 damage!), and moving it to heroic without changing the amount should be out of the question. A more reasonable version would be:

Recalled Shot
Prerequisite: Prime Shot Class feature
Benefit: Whenever you successfully hit a target against whom you received your Prime Shot bonus, your attack deals an additional 2 damage. Increase this extra damage to 3 at 11th level, and 4 at 21st level.


warlocks are behind sorcerors in single target damage by precisely the amount that giving them a d6->d8 striker feat would fix.

If that is true, the feat wouldn't solve this difference unless you gave it for free, since a sorcerer can spend a feat (say, Arcane Spellfury) to boost his attacks, too. I'm afraid that the only practical solution would be making above-average damage enhancing feats that were exclusive to Warlocks. Note that Called Shot and the variant shown above can actually be used by Rangers. You don't want more overpowered feats that a Ranger can use.

I would rather go with the following feats
Resonating Curse.
Repeated Curse.

Resonating Curse is a great idea, and I'll try to include it in my games when I get a chance. Repeated Curse I don't like so much, since improving warlock AoE gets too much in the Sorcerer's field to my tastes. I'd rather let warlocks have the edge on single targets.

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

I don't think that's too fair to the warlock. What they are really missing are a couple of damage points. They have plenty of cool, useful features otherwise. And their defenses, apart from the Starlock disaster, are good or even great. Comparisons with Sorcerers tend to miss the fact that, regarding defenses, Int-using Warlocks start a feat ahead (Leather Prof.) and are otherwise around 1 point higher (Shadow Walk being worth 2 points, and Sorcerer features a bit less than 1).

Issue 2- Starlock defense

the star warlock should get chain proficiency
chainmal alone is probably also insufficient(...)
Hadars Armor

Actually, chainmail is decent enough, for a class that isn't supposed to get into melee. Specially if you take into account the 2 extra points from Shadow Walk's concealment... I understand some player's desire to achieve great defenses, but I'd say upgrading from chain is far from mandatory. Other than that, I agree that starlock defense sucks, and it would need a little improvement. Chain proficiency is a solution that works within existing rules, but since we're houseruling... why not give them good defense in light armor? The way I see it, heavily armored warlocks hardly fit the class' flavor, anyway. Other possible feat that fixes defenses and gives a little extra would be:

Unnatural Celerity
Requirements: Warlock, Eldritch Pact class feature.
Benefit: While you are not wearing heavy armor, you can use the lowest of your Constitution and Charisma modifier in place of your Dexterity or Intelligence modifier to determine your AC and Reflex defense. In addition, you can use this modifier in place of your Dexterity modifier to determine your initiative


Issue 3 - Starlock ability scores


(...)focus entirely on one ability score for attacks
Star Channeler]
I've inverted the warlock's primary and secondary stats, making it an 'A' class instead of a 'V'

These solutions do their job, though I don't like intelligence as main score, for this class. It does have important mechanical advantages, but I don't think it fits. Then again, if you choose either Con or Cha as main, and use the other two as secondary, you're facing again one build with lousy AC.

One interesting, though difficult to implement, approach to solving MAD is what they achieved with Paladins in Divine Power: creating a viable MAD build. In the Paladin's case, the feat Mighty Challenge is a great reward for having high scores in both Strength and Charisma, resulting in monstruous Divine Challenge damage. Maybe we could do something similar with Warlocks? Making starlocks feel good about mixing Charisma and Constitution powers...

The following feat is wordy, and stronger than most, but it also has strict requirements regarding power selection and use, and I think it could be quite fun:

Celestial Madness
Requirements: Warlock
Benefit:When you use a warlock attack power, if you use Charisma for the attack roll you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls using Constitution and a +2 bonus to subsequent damage rolls until the end of your next turn.
When you use a warlock attack power, if you use Constitution for the attack roll you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls using Charisma and a +2 bonus to subsequent damage rolls until the end of your next turn.
Increase the damage bonus to +3 at 11th level, and +4 at 21st level
 

About Starlock's ability scores.

INT only affects AC in light armor (which starlock's jump out of) and secondary effect on encount powers.
Now look at half of those secondary effects of star powers, most of them suck until epic.
A Starlock really doesn't need INT higher than 12.

-Will 'til EOT
-AC 'til EOT
-to attack roll when enemy rolls twice.
+damage to secondary attack
+vulnerability 'til EOT
Teleport range

Not worth nerfing your whole build.

There are many more aspects of striker than just damage.
Safety: How well the class can discourage enemies from attacking it.
Accuracy: How much difficulty the class has at attacking enemies in the prefered conditions.
Toughness: The classes overall defense

If I were to compare a warlock to a rogue

Warlock
Damage: 2/5
Safety: 5/5
Accuracy: 4/5
Toughness: 3/5

Rogue
Damage: 4/5
Safety: 3/5
Accuracy: 2/5
Toughness: 4/5

The strength a warlock is that it can nova with any fear. They can hit their cursed enemy at range and the enemy can't or won't want to hit back. A warlock should never get to 25% HP unless she get ganged up on or goes into melee.
 

Well, I'm not sure I agree with your ratings there Minigiant... Rogues are definitely the most accurate class in the game in general.

I agree though, starlock's real issue is people don't seem to build them very well. INT just isn't that big a deal for them. Its worth putting SOME effort into, but the real key to making them work well is to focus mainly on one stat, most likely CON, but CHA can work fine as well. You also have to be willing to use powers that are at least theoretically intended for the other pacts to some extent. I see starlock as sort of an in-between build that can emphasize more of the trickiness of the feypack and go CHA or more of the high damage output of the infernal pact and go CON. Admittedly they're probably the toughest class to make a good build for, but since I've seen a pretty darn effective one in our group I know it is possible.

I think it would be fine to have a feat to increase curse damage to a d8. Even though it can be done via a rod there's no harm in having 2 ways to get the same thing. Some warlocks may not want to use one of those specific rods and would rather spend the feat. Others won't need the feat or may later find it redundant and can retrain it.

Basically what I see is warlocks are just finicky more than somehow defective. Of all the PHB1 classes warlocks are the one I would least want to hand off to a new or very casual player. With the trickiness of balancing stats, the need for good feat selection, and a pretty hard requirement on having the right equipment, coupled with a fairly subtle tactical play requirement they are just not really a very good beginner class. Maybe that was a bit of a design failure, but it certainly doesn't seem like a major disaster requiring serious class surgery to fix.

Another observation is that while AP didn't do massive things for warlocks, it did give them some additional options. Playing them with PHB1 stuff only is pretty limiting. Possible, but not the best way to go. Again, it kind of does make the class more of an expert player oriented class.

I kind of think about it this way though. The RP aspects of warlocks are also kind of tricky. More than any other class in the game they have a fairly tight coupling between fluff and crunch. Not that the two are mechanically intertwined, but the crunchy choices of which pact to play are going to have a lot of fluffy impact on character development, assuming the character is played in a halfway decent fashion RP-wise. Once again it kind of makes it more of a class appealing to expert players.

Just kind of the nature of warlocks. Personally I'm loathe to heap new goodies on them simply because its already possible to make a good one and in the hands of the right player a boosted warlock could actually get pretty scary. In fact high level warlocks can already get pretty scary.
 

The only thing I'd like to see is for them to have more options available in terms of At-Wills. The fact that they didn't release a set of one-per-pact alternate At-Wills in AP is tragic; that really should have been one of the #1 priorities for that book. (And the Star Pact one would, of course, be Cha-based.)

You could also reintroduce the deleted feat "Accursed Accuracy" - it was in the CB for a while after Arcane Power came out, but hadn't actually made it into the book. You ignore concealment and total concealment when attacking a cursed target. Simple, strong (invisibility minus total concealment is just a game of "guess which square I'm in!"), and unique.

Lastly, and this is true for all implements, make weapons-as-implements not so stupidly optimal! Superior implements (coming in PHB3, they promise us) should help with this. Stripping the ridiculous stat requirements on Dark Fury and the like would also be a big help - that or put Implement Focus in, goofballs. In the meanwhile, though, DMs can easily just import (or take inspiration from) the weapon enchantments to make custom rods and so forth for their specific PCs. And in fact, just in general, tuning your custom items is a great way to do this anyway.

(For instance, taking a leaf from the Potion Bandolier and Deep-Pocket Cloak, my game will soon include a "meta-Rod" which is shaped like a single Rod but which can contain the properties of up to half a dozen; it bears the stats of one at a time and can be swapped once per round as a free action. Quickcurse -> Corruption <-> Mercurial, for example. Effectively this is a Potion Bandolier for rods... with the "draw/store" reskinned into simply changing properties.)
 

My starlock uses CON and CHA Only, both starting at 18. His INT is 12 and he wears scale in paragon. Dual stat works but only on starlocks. INT is not needed in this warlock build.

Int is important the other pacts, but at the moment, star pact gets the crappiest encounter power pact boons.

AldulAlhazred, when I said accuracy, I meant ease in ability to accurately attack in their prefered manner. Warlocks have a long ranged powers and prefer to jump in for a shot and curse then dance around the enemy. Rogue either need to get in melee with a buddy or shoot with the occasional sneak attack (without a feat).
 
Last edited:

Frigid Darkness and Strand of Fate see a lot out of a real Int. Arms of Hadar and Dark Transport gain entirely new tactical uses with a significant Int.

You can definitely skip Int on any warlock. I'm not seeing any special facet of Star Pact that makes it a lot easier. But eh.
 

Lastly, and this is true for all implements, make weapons-as-implements not so stupidly optimal! Superior implements (coming in PHB3, they promise us) should help with this. Stripping the ridiculous stat requirements on Dark Fury and the like would also be a big help - that or put Implement Focus in, goofballs. In the meanwhile, though, DMs can easily just import (or take inspiration from) the weapon enchantments to make custom rods and so forth for their specific PCs. And in fact, just in general, tuning your custom items is a great way to do this anyway.
Implement Focus at least is easy to house rule; I also made seven superior implements that I think are pretty awesome. Just because I don't wait for splatbooks. :)
 



Remove ads

Top