View Full Version : Improving the concept of a warlock

06-17-2017, 11:28 AM
I played with a buddy warlock through heroic quests as a dwarf fighter and even though this fighter would be great pair to any other class, with warlock partner it ended up being a "bodyguard who just follows around".

I really wouldn't like this thread to be just an ordinary call for a warlock nerf, but instead I would just like to state my observance of some key elements that make it an overpowered class that outmaches other classes in concepts that they should excell at and thus makes warlock superior insted of being special and different from other classes.

1. Eldritch blast shapes spellpower bonus

I really don't see the point in giving 130% spellpower bonus to eldritch blast. Just make it a normal, unamplified 100% for the basic focused blast and it would take care of some overpowerdness of its damage (in heroic, I will later in this post propose a fix to make up for that damage loss in epic levels).

When warlock uses focused shape it misses a lot and it also targets only one enemy. This shape should do the biggest damage of all shapes, 100% spellpower bonus.

Other shapes should not be amplifiers of damage, but rather just as their name says: SHAPES. Different distributions of the blast damage.

Enervating shadow folows its target and gives them negative level sometimes. But since it is a single target (and high tier in enhancement tree) it should be second in damage to focused, so maybe 95% of the spellpower bonus to that shape would balance things out.

Cone shape is closer range, but can damage all enemies in a wide area in front of you. It should have much less bonus then focused shape, 80% or 85% spellpower bonus.

Chain is a long-range multi-target shape so it should do least damage, 70% or 75% spellpower bonus.

Eldritch aura could be made either the same as focused (100%) or at least the same as cone (80% of 85% spellpower bonus).

The result should be that there are no superior shapes that are always on, but that you have to choose certain shape based on your needs, and with regards to pros and cons of each shape.

Overview of my proposed of Spell Power scale that increases Warlocks' Eldritch Blast damage:
Different shapes scale differently with Spell Power:

Focused - 100%
Enervating - 95%
Cone - 85% or 80%
Chain - 75% or 70%
Aura - like Focused or like Cone

2. Epic eldritch blast

Now that we have made an improvement to the concept of eldritch blast shapes and nerfed its damage in the process, we can now take care of the problem this nerf could cause in epics.

The simplest solution that I can think of is improving the Epic Eldritch Blast feat.

Instead of it giving a straight +2d6 Eldritch Blast damage, it could give a certain amount of damage every epic level or two (just like heroic Toughness gives HP every level, but this would only be based on epic levels).

Or maybe even incremental damage gain every level or two.

For example:
+1d4 damage every epic level.
+1d2 damage on epic level 2, +1d4 damage on epic level 4, ... , +1d10 damage on epic level 10.

I haven't made a calculation, this is just a demonstration of a mechanism that could be applied to compensate for the damage loss shape damage nerf did in epics.

So what do we have now after these two improvements? We have better concept of blast shapes, lesser OP in heroics, and we have constant increase of power in epics that would in end game somewhat compensate heroic damage nerf.

3. Armored caster concept problem

Probem is caused by this feat on tier 4:

Medium Armor Proficiency: Passive: You gain proficiency in Medium Armor, and the ability to cast arcane spells in medium armor without arcane spell failure.

This feat should be split into two feats, on tier 4 we would have:

Light Armor Proficiency: Passive: You gain proficiency in Light Armor, and the ability to cast arcane spells in light armor without arcane spell failure.

And the other for medium armor would be in tier 5 so that you have to take tier 5 enhancements in Enlightened Spirit tree (which means specialize in close combat) to be able to wear medium armor.

Other warlocks that take tier 5 on other trees could only wear light armor without spell failure so armored caster style would be only for warlocks that specialize in "close combat warlock" tree. This would be a great improvement for the concept of this caster class which would make these casters lightly armored when not specialized in close combat.

4. Damaging spell in warlock spell list

Problem is caused by the spell:

Evard's Black Tentacles

It deals too much damage when amplified with metamagic feats and spellpower items.

Warlocks weren't meant to even have damaging spells and this spell was taken from a PnP wizard.

I wouldn't take it away from them, but I would just give it a 50% penalty to spellpower bonus from items and metamagic (like pale master SLAs have) to reduce the damage.

And this spell should be given to wizards and sorcerers since it is modeled after their PnP spell.

5. Too many insta-kill spells in spell book

Problem is caused by this spell:

Wail of the Banshee

Giving this spell to all warlocks was just too much and made them better then wizards and sorcerers for insta-killing.

I still wouldn't take it away from them completely.

I would just switch this spell with Fey pact's bonus level 6 spell Otto's Irresistible Dance.

Wail of the Banshee fits perfectly with the concept of a sonic warlock.

And this would fix the problem of Fey warlocks not having a bonus insta kill spell so with that all three pacts would have at least one insta-kill as a bonus spell.

On the other hand all warlocks would have Otto's Irresistible Dance in spellbook as a level 6 spell (nice CC spell).

That way we wouldn't have too many insta-kill spells on Fiend and Great old one warlocks and would have at least one bonus insta-kill spell on Fey warlocks (more balanced pacts).

I would also replace Finger of Death with cleric's Destruction spell. It just better fits the concept of a warlock and deals less damage per level on a fortitude save (better maches the concept of warlock not dealing high damage with spells).

6. Knock spell for only one pact

I don't see why only Great old one warlocks should have the ability to open locks. It only makes solo players choose only this pact for playing because this gives them the benefit of unlocking chests and doors in quests.

So Knock should be put into spellbook as a regular spell for all warlocks while Great old one warlocks should get a new spell in its place.

That's it for this proposal of a warlock concept improvement. I hope I haven't made too many nerfs in this proposal and that it serves the intended purpose of concept improval rather then bare nerf.