test
Welcome to Dndorks Sign in | Join | Help
in
Comic Blogs Forums PBF Utilities Photos Downloads

Warlocks, Good or Bad?

Last post 02-13-2008, 2:18 AM by Schotty. 10 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  10-15-2007, 5:56 PM 803240

    Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    At early levels warlocks are pretty powerful. The summon swarm evocation will wreak havoc at lower levels. However, a major problem for warlocks is that they're very dependant on feats to be strong. Because they get very few evocations what they can do is very limited. So most warlocks will end up taking feats that either give them more evocations or boost their eldritch blast. In the beginning eldritch blast is great. It goes up every other level, but this ends at level 10. At that point it only advances once every 3 levels. No feat, spell, or evocation can make up for this major gap in damage. At level 20 you can only do 9d6 damage, which isn't very much for that level. Even though you can use it however many times per day you want that doesn't make up for it's weakness. Basically, the warlock is weak because its primary weapon becomes underpowered.

    Proud creator of the only stickied thread on these forums.
  •  10-16-2007, 4:26 PM 803252 in reply to 803240

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    I will agree that they are rather feat heavy as many of the archery feats help aid a Warlock in its Eldritch blasts but gear can help as well.  Chausible of Fel Power (Major) adds 2d6 to your Eldritch blast.  This is like adding 4 levels of Warlock to your damage.  The limit on the damage is to offset the other abilities they get.  They aren't going to be the primary nuker like a Sorcerer or Wizard but do more damage than your tanks.  Add in the blast shapes like cone and chain and such and you are getting some AoE with your blasts.  You can also apply add an essence to it as well.  Imagine chaining an 11d6 (level 20 w/gear) Vitrolic Blast that ignores spell resistance, adds 2d6 acid for 4 rounds stackable with up to 1+5 targets or use a cone shape to hit an even larger group.  These aren't even the highest invocations.  You could be giving targets negative energy levels, run around as a horned devil or have undead minions like a Necromancer.  Here is a list of invocations http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Invocation.  Your primary weapon is going to be doing more damage than your sword weilder with the possibility of only the rogue out damaging you if they can backstab. (I've seen nasty builds for 2 weapon backstabbing rogues that will put a wizard to shame if they get their full attack going with backstabs).  Maybe a dual weilding fighter with awesome elemental equipment (+5 swords with Fire, Frost, Electricity, Acid and Sonic) and high STR or a well built archer with the feats and similar elemental bow but they will need to hit the target.  Even decked out with good equipment monsters at high level can have insane ACs.  The warlock only needs a touch AC.

    Keep in mind that balancing the damage output is that fact that you can keep doing it over and over and over.  A caster type is going to run out of those big spells and be reduced down to nothing in a long battle.  They also aren't able to take hit very well.  The fact that the warlock can wear light armor, has a d6 vs a d4, gains energy resistances to 2 things up to 20 at level 20, up to fast healing 5 for 20 rounds at level 20 and DR/cold iron up to DR5 at lvl 19.  Their saves are poor but there is an invocation that gives them their charisma bonus to their saves like a Paladin.  Their REF save should be high from a high DEX.

    You are have the ability to use wands and scrolls early on with a bonus even.  This lets you add your versatility in equipment.

    The part that I could complain about is that even at level 20, you are allowed no more than 3 of each level of invocations for a total of 12 (if my source is correct, I'm using a NWN2 chart for abilities).  Even into epic levels this does not increase.  It forces you to stick with just a few tricks.

    Question, does haste allow the Warlock to blast twice?  I know it doesn't let casters cast twice but a Eldritch Blast is considered a spell-like ranged weapon.  Maybe not because of the spell like descriptor?


    The Views of Site Smith Scott do not reflect the views of DnDorks.com. So get a real job, move out of your parents home, live in the real world and get over it.
  •  10-17-2007, 4:27 PM 803265 in reply to 803252

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    haste only gives an extra attack on a full attack action, as far as I know eldritch blasts are standard actions, so thus not eligible for additional attacks from haste.  To confirm though, do warlocks get extra attacks from high BAB? If not, then not, if so, then yes.  What about feats like rapid shot or multishot?


    Richard M.
    Grimfang
    "Whisper"
    Xaeraes
  •  10-17-2007, 6:28 PM 803268 in reply to 803265

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    I am one of the few people who played one so i can diffintly say there like the 3.0 paladin. At 1-7 there great but at the higher levels he suffers. If you play one look into multi classing or one of the complete mage prestige classes in advance. Also you only dont get mutiple attacks but rapid and multi shot DO work so if your gonna concertration on your bast attack just do it.  
    "Blue Wizard has stoped time" - Gauntlet
  •  10-17-2007, 7:20 PM 803269 in reply to 803268

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    I have to agree with Vaashin. I too have played a warlock levels 1-20. Scott, you said you only played it up to level 10, so your perspective is somewhat skewed.

    Proud creator of the only stickied thread on these forums.
  •  10-18-2007, 8:31 AM 803273 in reply to 803269

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    his view is skewed, but its skewed towards the majority of play and IMO the best portion of gameplay (the midlevels).  D&D has always focused on the first 10 levels, after that the designers pretty much just gave up trying to come up with new stuff and generally just increment existing numbers.  If you do searches on the wotc boards for warlock faq you can find all kinds of combos that make warlocks quite impressive all the way to 20, they aren't the "most" broken of classes, but they can still pull of fantastic combos with super high yield damage attacks consistently. 

    Warlocks are very "consistent", they give up the most extreme abuses of power for a constant flow of effectiveness with no charges per day, material components, or need to rest.  Depending on how your campaigns go will depend on how effective that strategy is.

    If your DM lets you rest after every big encounter, warlocks are probably weak, perhaps incredibly weak.  If your DM tends to push your group to the limits, then the warlock probably is the most impressive member of the party, envied by everyone else, at least if built right with all of the extra invocations and prestige classes from other books. 


    Richard M.
    Grimfang
    "Whisper"
    Xaeraes
  •  10-23-2007, 4:06 PM 803350 in reply to 803268

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    Vaashin:
    I am one of the few people who played one so i can diffintly say there like the 3.0 paladin. At 1-7 there great but at the higher levels he suffers. If you play one look into multi classing or one of the complete mage prestige classes in advance. Also you only dont get mutiple attacks but rapid and multi shot DO work so if your gonna concertration on your bast attack just do it.  

    I'm going to check the wording on the rapid shot and multi-shot feats because I thought they only applied to archery attacks (bow or crossbow) and thus wouldn't apply to Eldritch blast.  If that is the case then they just became more powerful at high levels.  Using multi-shot as a base, a warlock is getting off 3 to 4 ranged blasts at 10d6 (with items) at lvl 20 doing 40d6 plus shapes and special effects PLUS only hitting a touch AC.  Better than any caster at that point for damage output.  Use the metamagic rods that can give you empower or maximize spell like ability and now you are adding x1.5 damage at max damage.  I had almost forgot about metamagic rods for spell-like too.


    The Views of Site Smith Scott do not reflect the views of DnDorks.com. So get a real job, move out of your parents home, live in the real world and get over it.
  •  10-23-2007, 4:07 PM 803351 in reply to 803269

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    That one guy:
    I have to agree with Vaashin. I too have played a warlock levels 1-20. Scott, you said you only played it up to level 10, so your perspective is somewhat skewed.

    True I only played to 10 but I can do the numbers for the higher levels taking into account equipment.


    The Views of Site Smith Scott do not reflect the views of DnDorks.com. So get a real job, move out of your parents home, live in the real world and get over it.
  •  10-23-2007, 4:17 PM 803353 in reply to 803268

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    Vaashin:
    I am one of the few people who played one so i can diffintly say there like the 3.0 paladin. At 1-7 there great but at the higher levels he suffers. If you play one look into multi classing or one of the complete mage prestige classes in advance. Also you only dont get mutiple attacks but rapid and multi shot DO work so if your gonna concertration on your bast attack just do it.  

    A lot of the base classes are like that though from 3.0 - you played them only long enough to prestidge class into something else.  In 3.0 I would take 1 level rogue, then 1 level ranger for 2 weapon fighting and track then continue into rogue or take a level of ranger then go feater for the feats.  In 3.5 they made a lot of the base classes worth playing higher up and I think Warlock is one.  I'm always a fan of grabbing a few other classes here and there to give me a few more feats, profeciencies and saves.  For a warlock it might be worth it to grab a fighter level for BAB and feats and Fort save bonus and some more hit points as well as the option of using shields.  Rogue would be good as well with the ties in with the useful utility innovocations like darkness/devil sight or invisibility and blast+backstab and gaining evasion and awesome skills.

    Most people prestidge class so it isn't a big deal to not go pure Warlock accept so far no class adds to your blast/innovaction at every level.  Accolyte of the skin I went into only for 2-3 levels because it added it every other level which was hurting my innovacations and lowering my blast damage down one d6 compared to a full warlock.


    The Views of Site Smith Scott do not reflect the views of DnDorks.com. So get a real job, move out of your parents home, live in the real world and get over it.
  •  10-23-2007, 4:20 PM 803354 in reply to 803353

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    All this talk of warlocks makes me want to roll one up and play.  Maybe in the game I'm playing with Rich and our friends Mark, Ryan and Syb if I die I'll make one.
    The Views of Site Smith Scott do not reflect the views of DnDorks.com. So get a real job, move out of your parents home, live in the real world and get over it.
  •  02-13-2008, 2:18 AM 803832 in reply to 803354

    Re: Warlocks, Good or Bad?

    I'm going to play a warlock in the new PBF about Goblins orcs etc ruling so which book/books would I look in for more information on Warlocks???
View as RSS news feed in XML
Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems