What would fix warlocks?

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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 are misunderstanding the way 4E attack powers work. If you look at monsters' defenses, you'll see that the AC defense is typically ~2-3 points higher than Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. The 4E designers purposely did this to balance weapons' proficiency bonuses. In other words, an attack power using an implement instead of a weapon (which doesn't get the weapon proficiency bonus) virtually always targets Reflex, Fortitude, or Will instead of AC. The chance to hit is the same for an implement-based attack power targeting F, R, or W is the same as a weapon-based attack power targeting AC.

 

[DracoSuave]

There seems to be a common sentiment amongst players that the warlock's flavour and general powers are great but that it lacks punch. As a striker people seem to feel it's the weakest of the bunch.

1) Stop building deceptive warlocks and expecting them to be scourging.

2) Dire Radiance is an easy power to use. Hit melee enemy that is not near group... when he reaches group, you've done 2d6+BonusX2+1d6 damage. Not hard.

3) Stop comparing yourself to Rangers. Seriously. Rangers are the best. That's their job. You have your job.

 

[Felon]

1) Stop building deceptive warlocks and expecting them to be scourging.

2) Dire Radiance is an easy power to use. Hit melee enemy that is not near group... when he reaches group, you've done 2d6+BonusX2+1d6 damage. Not hard.

3) Stop comparing yourself to Rangers. Seriously. Rangers are the best. That's their job. You have your job.

Your way of making the warlock look good seems to be to stop comparing the warlock to all the many things that make it look bad.

Deceptive schmeptive. People are building a striker and expecting it to pack a punch in addition to whatever else it does well, not instead of. And not necessarily a ranger's punch either, but a better punch than the fighter or warlord wielding a two-handed superior weapon. Currently, that is not the case.

It's bizarre to me that Arcane Power did not nothing to jump-start the class that most badly needed it. Paladins got a boost in their splat book. Wizards got a bit of a boost. Clerics got a boost they didn't even need., taking Turn Undead and converting into a big group heal. If they can get away with that kind of gonzo move, then they can get away with quiety putting Eldritch Blast out to pasture and bringing in an attack with some power that can actually rival an executioner's axe or mordenkrad.

Of course, a + CON/INT race would be a nice incentive, not to mention overdue.

 

[Neuroglyph]

You are misunderstanding the way 4E attack powers work. If you look at monsters' defenses, you'll see that the AC defense is typically ~2-3 points higher than Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. The 4E designers purposely did this to balance weapons' proficiency bonuses. In other words, an attack power using an implement instead of a weapon (which doesn't get the weapon proficiency bonus) virtually always targets Reflex, Fortitude, or Will instead of AC. The chance to hit is the same for an implement-based attack power targeting F, R, or W is the same as a weapon-based attack power targeting AC.

It's not exactly the same, because the spread is not always 2-3 points lower.

Check out good old low level Goblins for instance. I see quite a few defenses that are only 1-2 points down from AC, not 2-3, which means that weapon based exploits are 5% to 10% more likely to hit. Or want a higher level example? Try a Werewolf then or a Gnoll Marauder - those guys have secondary defenses just as high as AC.

And Characters dont know which of the defenses is that magical "3 lower than AC", so unless the Warlock spends an action trying to get a Monster Knowledge roll off (and succeeding), its a shot in the dark.

So it's not the same at all, and weapon proficiency is a bonus, not an equalizer.

 

[keterys]

And sometimes you run into creatures whose defenses are level + 7 or level + 9 instead of the level + 12 they should be, or the level + 14 AC they have, and going against a NAD gives you an effective +3 or +5 bonus.

Stuff happens, certainly. But by and large, the math bears out that weapon proficiency vs. AC is equivalent enough compared to implement vs. NAD. Course, then rogues go and cheat by targeting NAD with proficiency, and possibly an extra +1 on top of that, and oh combat advantage with maybe another +1 on top that. But that's their shtick and all.

 

[Starfox]

And Characters dont know which of the defenses is that magical "3 lower than AC", so unless the Warlock spends an action trying to get a Monster Knowledge roll off (and succeeding), its a shot in the dark.

Monster knowledge rolls are free actions. On the other hand, you have to succeed spectacularly well to learn a creature's defense values.

A table rule I use for 4E sit at I always tell the value of a defense when it is attacked, giving my players tactical information I feel they need to actually benefit from their tactical options. Works well so far.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not exactly the same, because the spread is not always 2-3 points lower.

Check out good old low level Goblins for instance. I see quite a few defenses that are only 1-2 points down from AC, not 2-3, which means that weapon based exploits are 5% to 10% more likely to hit. Or want a higher level example? Try a Werewolf then or a Gnoll Marauder - those guys have secondary defenses just as high as AC.

And Characters dont know which of the defenses is that magical "3 lower than AC", so unless the Warlock spends an action trying to get a Monster Knowledge roll off (and succeeding), its a shot in the dark.

So it's not the same at all, and weapon proficiency is a bonus, not an equalizer.

Almost all the lowl level gobline have AC-Reflesx difference of 2 or more. Any warlock should also know that skrimishers/archers have terrible Fortitude and brutes/soldiers terrible Reflex so if you use the right at-will youll rarely miss.

For the most part, if you guess the monster type right you'll get +2 or more. In paragon or epic, it can get really high.

 

[Rothe_]

Few really quick and undeveloped ideas:

- Stat bonus (Cha or Con, maybe int with the A-design) damage on a miss vs. a cursed enemy. This should be pretty balanced IMO, since it does not get multiplied with the hellish rebuke or dire radiance. It is also pretty simple and should be easy to add without conflicting with other stuff. Obviously no help vs. minions, but warlocks like minions for the boons already. This could be a basic class ability.

OR

- Deal <stat bonus> extra damage vs. cursed enemies that are bloodied or not-bloodied. Might depend on the type of 'lock which one it is. I just like to make more use of the bloodied condition. This would be limited in two ways vs. sorcerer's bonus, so it should not make it too unbalanced. AoE would not work too fast because you need curses on the field and bloodied vs. unbloodied is about half the effect in any case.

OR

- When a cursed enemy misses with an attack, it takes X damage or some effect. Kind of how the bard's jinx shot works. This just came to mind when thinking about "curses" in general and how they might apply to other things that straight damage dealing.

 

[keterys]

I definitely like the first one.