What would fix warlocks?

[Walking Dad]

You could allow a feat to bump up their damage from a d6's to d8's, just like the ranger and rogue get. That would be a start.

Also I think the star warlock should get chain proficiency. Their AC's are some in the worst in the game because they tend to focus on con and cha....so they have no AC boosting stat.

And they lack a heavy armor proficiency (netcost of requ str & con 13 plus a feat.) The protective shaman and (as it seems) the swarm druid share this problem. And having to justify the metal armor for primal classes or suffer in playability is a horrible design.

 

[Garthanos]

And they lack a heavy armor proficiency (netcost of requ str & con 13 plus a feat.) The protective shaman and (as it seems) the swarm druid share this problem. And having to justify the metal armor for primal classes or suffer in playability is a horrible design.

Heavy armor for primals
Armor of Stone : only ever magical however.
Armor of Wood : uses a level 6 ritual to make it hard as metal.

The Green Knights of my world make use of these things... because metals are uncommon or poisonous when mined in their areas not because metal is unnatural.

I normally have the Green Knights built as Wardens and Armor of Wood is normally built analogous to Hide, but there are definitely some of them that could be somewhat different archetypes (protective shaman). And I think Armor of Stone would be perfect for them.

 

[Neuroglyph]

The thing with Warlocks is that, unlike most other classes, they rely heavily on gear to come up to speed.

Other classes can choose whether to get nifty stuff through feats or weapons/implements; Warlocks don't have the feats, and so they have a much more pressing shopping/wish list of items.

What I've determined in my campaign is that the damage output is not the problem, but it's the ability of the Warlock to actually hit anything and thereby do damage.

Starting off, most classes that are weapon based get to pick up a mundane sword or dagger, and instantly get a +2 or +3 to hit, on top of their stat bonus. The Warlock is dependent only on his primary stat bonus for his attack bonus. This puts the 'lock way behind in the "to hit" race, and if you can't hit, you can't do damage.

You have to get implements into the hands of the Warlock quickly to make up for this detriment -I even introduced a +1 "to hit" on a rod and called it Masterwork, just to help the 'lock out at low levels.

The Warlock in my campaign is Vestige Pact and I see him dishing out plenty of damage now. I think upping the damage output to make up for lack of hitting could be very unbalancing in the long run.

 

[jstomel]

What I've determined in my campaign is that the damage output is not the problem, but it's the ability of the Warlock to actually hit anything and thereby do damage.

I don't know. One of the advantages of the warlock is easy access to a range of abilities that target non-AC defense values. A human warlock can easily start with at-wills targeting reflex, fort and will. Chances are pretty good that any monster is going to have at least one defense that is significantly below it's AC value. A well constructed warlock will on average do less damage per hit than a ranger or rogue of equal level, but with proper knowledge and forethought they should be able to find the weakness of any enemy and exploit it somehow. If a ranger goes up against a high AC tank he's pretty much screwed. A warlock will just hammer away at reflex or will, whichever is lower. In addition, warlocks have access to a much wider range of damage types than any other striker. This means that if a monster has a vulnerability to a particular type of damage the warlock can usually exploit that. Obviously, a well functioning warlock needs to maintain a good stock of lore proficiencies to make the best use of it's versatility. In conclusion, the warlock can be a high hit rate damage dealing machine if it is played by someone with the patience and tenacity to min-max the hell out of it. It's not a good class for newbies or people who don't want to spend a lot of time thinking about tactics during combat.

 

[keterys]

Even without the lore, the difference between his ranged spell going against a NAD and someone doing a ranged attack with a weapon is +2, and the difference between NAD and AC is, whattya know, 2.

Because it's such a small number ('I'm only +4!? He's +7!') though it gives the perception, though not the actuality, of being less accurate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well.... In defense of the warlock you could look at it this way:

A starlock has a bonus based on pact boon, which while it won't be available every round can add at least +1 to many of their attacks. My observation is it triggers about 1/3 of the time for +1 or sometimes +2.

All warlocks have Prime Shot. Its pretty situational, but it does help if the player works it a bit and all warlocks have Shadow Walk plus Fey and Infernal 'locks have additional features to enhance their defenses so they can utilize this feature effectively.

To start with pretty much all warlock powers are targeting NADs, so that puts them even with +2 prof weapon users. An FWT fighter using a +3 prof weapon is basically going to have +2 all the time by comparison. Likewise a rogue will have +1 if using a dagger plus another +1 due to his +3 prof weapon and may be targetting NADs for at most +4 relative to a warlock.

So yeah, warlocks aren't the most accurate character in the game by default. OTOH they CAN do some things about that. Since they have access to weaplements they do have the best possible feat selection for boosting to-hit. It won't help them vs other strikers at really low levels, but it does seem to equalize things a good bit as they go up, if the player is careful in their pick of feats.

It is worth noting too that warlock powers tend to be pretty potent.

I think one of the difficulties with tweaking warlocks is that IF they are optimally played they're in no need of help. If played at a mediocre level they tend to be a bit weak, but its a fairly fine line between them and other strikers. The quandry is, what do you do? Giving them a straight up +1 to-hit is maybe about right for a lot of average players, but for the real warlock experts and even the average guys when they hit higher levels it could be too much. I'd almost be more tempted to give them one of the several feats that will buff them up as a bonus feat if you feel the need.

On the other hand it kind of seems like the WotC solution of handing them some VERY nice item based upgrades is a pretty good solution too. For a player struggling with their build a nice Rod of Curse Spamming tossed in at level 1 can do the trick, while a player who isn't having any trouble can live without it for a while.

 

[keterys]

Comparing an archer ranger to a warlock, the warlock is +2 to hit less but has the choice of going against Reflex and (Fort or Will) instead of AC.

The warlock at a minimum ties that comparison, and usually wins it. The warlock is also able to get combat advantage via stealth more, but let's overlook that since it's not a typical tactic.

The rogue and fighter get a +1 accuracy bonus, but also incur far more danger than the warlock does - ditto melee weapons with +3 proficiency. Being in melee is a serious requirement and if the warlock _is_ in melee himself he gets +1 to hit from Prime Shot

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Comparing an archer ranger to a warlock, the warlock is +2 to hit less but has the choice of going against Reflex and (Fort or Will) instead of AC.

The warlock at a minimum ties that comparison, and usually wins it. The warlock is also able to get combat advantage via stealth more, but let's overlook that since it's not a typical tactic.

The rogue and fighter get a +1 accuracy bonus, but also incur far more danger than the warlock does - ditto melee weapons with +3 proficiency. Being in melee is a serious requirement and if the warlock _is_ in melee himself he gets +1 to hit from Prime Shot

Right, the more I analyze it the more I feel like its mostly just a matter of warlocks are a tough class to play. Probably the hardest of all the striker classes, especially a feylock. If you do it right they really shine. The starlock in my saturday game is pretty close to being not only the highest DPR character in the party (there is no Ranger, but the rogue and the fighter are no slouches) but he's also a pretty good controller in a pinch. He'll whip out Hunger of Hadar now and then and really do a number on my tactics. HoH really is a VERY good spell. The AoE is a bit smaller than the wizard's Big Stinky, but that isn't always a problem and 2d10 auto-hit damage plus possibly 1d6+CON kicker is the best damage you can do with a 5th level daily AoE, PLUS the darn thing blocks LoS. The rest of the warlock arsenal generally seems likewise pretty darn good, though I haven't paid a lot of attention to the paragon level stuff yet.

 

[jstomel]

So I was just skimming through the MM1 and it looks like the difference between AC and a monster's lowest NAD is often around 5 or 6. Sometimes more and sometimes less, but 5 is not uncommon. The other thing I noticed is that with most monsters their lowest NAD is not reflex. Given this, I think that a warlock will likely hit more often then either a rogue or ranger, even through they do less damage on average. Warlock attacks often have a controller flavor, with either AoE or debuffs or persistent damage. I think the warlock compares favorably to other strikers with the exception of the sorcerer, which raises the question of whether the sorcerer is overpowered and needs to be nerfed a bit.

 

[chronoplasm]

I played a human infernal warlock for a while.
I don't think they need all that much fixing.
I had some problems with my build, but only in that I had too many things that gave temporary hitpoints that often didn't do anything because temp HP doesn't stack!
My attacks seemed to hit almost every time though when I was using my powers. I had very few misses.