Warlock -- Debating the numbers

[Baktiotha]

Preface

I started a thread asking people to simply state what stat they focus on and why. It is obvious that some people want to discuss stat numbers and how they are achieved in justifying their decisions and simultaneously questioning other people's stat numbers along the way.

So this thread is for the people who are unable to stay on topic in the other thread. Here is a thread where we can talk about stat numbers and how they affected our build choices. It is a place for *constructive* criticism. Please keep in mind that constructive criticism does not include bashing a person's build -- it means pointing out in a civil way things that the person might not have considered or might be better able to achieve in a different manner.

My Approach

I have a great deal of difficulty getting stats much above 50 on a routine basis. I do not expect that I should need to buy store potions for stat increases and I do not expect that I should need to invest in temporary boosts just to hit momentary heights. I look at having always available stat numbers. When I read about stats in the 80's and 90's I am impressed and a bit in awe.

I also notice that my characters *not* having stats in those ranges still manage to do well in any group including legendary content -- and yes, even legendary elite. So I have either been very fortunate and managed to pike each time with the right group or the upper thresholds are less necessary than some forum posters make them out to be. Either way, it affects how I view character building.

I do not notice a large amount of saves against the very few DC based actions that I take. Consequently I do not focus on CHA. My main character is a TWF melee/aura warlock but with caveats. 1) I do not invest any feats in TWF -- the to hit algorithm means that I am hitting most of the time regardless. 2) I TWF because I can carry items in both hands that improve my spell casting -- sometimes that something in the off hand is an orb and I am considering the impact of using a buckler in some cases, I have not gone full heavy shield. 3) I use Eldritch Aura and Eldritch Burst/Spirit Blast as my main forms of attack (replacing cleave/great cleave) and flail about wildly with weapons when those are on cool-down.

I chose Morninglord as my race and with a 36 point build I chose the following stats: 8, 8, 16, 18, 8, 16. I suppose that this technically represents favoring CON at start. But, I put level ups into INT. Here is my reasoning: I'm not hitting the 80's and 90's in my primary stat anyway, so if there is a DC save it is going to happen regardless -- that means I need to get as much damage out of my aura/burst/blast as I can possibly get.

I chose Morninglord because it has a racial enhancement for more light spell power. I spend 47 points in Enlightened Spirit and 17 in Morninglord. That leaves just 16 to spend elsewhere. I spend all of those in Tainted Scholar but only manage Strong Pact 3 times. Now, here's my math on that:

Pact damage: 13d4=32.5. Eldritch Aura (using Utterdark Blast): 9d6=31.5, Spiritual Retribution: 3d6=10.5, Spirit Blast: 10d6=35, Eldritch Burst: 3d6=10.5 -- total pact damage before scaling 32.5, half damage 16.25; total evil/light damage 87.5. Even though I could drop the points from Morninglord and take more pact damage and more enhancements out of Tainted Scholar the 30% light spell power is worth 26.25 damage. That is 10 points more damage than I am losing *if* the mob saves against the pact damage.

Currently I am at L22 working back to L30 on an ETR. I'm running in Fury of the Wild because I took Colors of the Queen last ETR. So I have to run Primal until I earn back 6 million XP.

One more comment on stats. With all stat increases went to INT but no enhancements or destiny increases. The character has no enhancements or destiny increases to CHA. I have 3 destiny increases to CON. With gear there is an 8 point difference between INT and CHA with INT 42, CHA 34 (after ship buffs).

I cannot see a reason to reverse those numbers as they represent just 4 points of DC or spell power either way. But, 4% of 87.5 right now is 3.5 more damage.

Postscript

My approach is that DPS is the best defense. Anything to increase the main source of damage is worth pursuing. The loss from pact damage is quickly overcome by the emphasis on light spell power. To me running this way lets me just jump into the middle of things and take on all comers.

[slarden]

Did the math here earlier today:

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/477392-First-warlock-build?p=5852559&view

[Baktiotha]

Did the math here earlier today

I have not seen the answer to what the needed DC is.

I understand the assertion -- that if a build hits a fail on 1 DC it does more damage -- but I notice no one is posting about what that DC is.

My point of view is that if a build *fails* to hit the DC then the assertion is false, the damage is lost from the pact damage, so it is better to boost the no fail damage -- and in particular because scarcely any (maybe no) mobs resist evil and light damage.

Edit: See below, my new assumption is that it may well be possible to hit the "no fail" or at least "very rarely fail" DC without putting any focus on CHA. Rough calculations show 16 CHA resulting in 70 DC by L30, at least for evocation (which is what affects Eldritch Blast/Aura and pact damage).

[Blastyswa]

I have not seen the answer to what the needed DC is.

I understand the assertion -- that if a build hits a fail on 1 DC it does more damage -- but I notice no one is posting about what that DC is.

My point of view is that if a build *fails* to hit the DC then the assertion is false, the damage is lost from the pact damage, so it is better to boost the no fail damage -- and in particular because scarcely any (maybe no) mobs resist evil and light damage.

In my own experience, I believe my pact damage DC atm is:
19 Base
26 Charisma
3 Sorcerer
46 DC
Although there's probably some other stuff in there I'm forgetting about, I doubt it's much more than 50. With great old one, that still lands basically no fail in anything below Legendary, a decent amount of the time in LH Shroud, and not often in LE Shroud. If you're playing a fiend, you need a much higher DC, if you're playing a fey, you need a higher DC than goo but less than fiend (for most enemies). The biggest reason to go cha over int though is that focusing all out on int, as opposed to getting it as high as reasonably possible without dropping constitution/charisma, will only get you 5-10 spellpower. This literally will increase your damage on each part of your burst probably by an amount either single-digit or barely double digit, to the point that it's pretty worthless. Charisma on the other hand can push your DC's up high enough to work no fail in most old content, and decently in new harder content, as well as getting spellpoints and will saves (If using force of personality).

[Rawrargh]

1. When in primal sphere you should really consider shiradi instead of FotW since that is one of the best (if not THE best) destiny for a non DC warlock.

2. 42 int gives you about 15 more damage per aura tick... not sure I'd consider that worth it at the cost of charisma.

3. You don't need a charisma of 80 to land evard's since the CC portion is a strength save.

4. From personal experience running wizard I've found that everything but reavers in the shavarath quests can be CC'd with no debuffing reliably (80-95%) with around 75 enchantment DC including LE content since will saves are ussually fairly low on melee mobs which make up 90% of quests. meaning that as soon as your evocation goes beyond the 55 mark you're gonna start seeing a damage increase on pact (assuming goo).

19 base
6 item
3 twist from draconic
(3 if running EA)
2 augment
3 sorc pl
3 insightful (brazenband)

39
Which means that with a minimal gear investment you can start seeing meaningful increases with as little as 42 charisma at endgame, every charisma modifier past that will give you a 5% on average damage increase to your pact damage.

Ofcourse level 20-30 the saves are ussually much lower so you don't need all that stuff while leveling.

[Baktiotha]

Did some fast calculations on DC numbers for evocation since Eldritch Blast is boosted by evocation focus.

CHA: 16 base, 7 tome, 15 gear, 1 exceptional, 7 insight, 4 quality, 2 completionist, 2 ship buff, 2 Enlightened Spirit capstone, 6 Exalted Angel destiny -- 62 CHA.

Evo DC: 10 base, 9 spell level, 26 CHA, 1 Evo Focus, 1 Greater Evo Focus, 3 Sorcerer past lives, 2 Aura of Menace*, 3 Magister t2 twist, 6 Dwarvencraft Evo Focus (TF weapon), 3 Transcendental Magic, 6 Arcane Insight -- 70 DC.

Most of what I've been able to find suggest DC >70 is enough. If that is the case there is no reason to push CHA.

For a build that is relying on Eldritch Aura, Eldritch Burst and Spirit Blast there is no need to be CHA based.

* Aura of Menace is a -2 debuff to saves but effectively is +2 to DC.

[PermaBanned]

Interesting. I run my 'Lock completely different, yet came to a similar result.

I actually use zero of the ES tree. Instead, I run a 41/39 TS/SE split with the TS capstone and SE t5s. My trash damage isn't quite what it could be, but my boss damage is both excellent (based completely off perception, no Training Dummies or Bruntsmashes were harmed in the forming of that opinion) and designed to make everyone else's better too via Vulnerability and debuffs to enemy PRR/MRR.

End result of my build is I only spam the pew-pew against trash, but vs bosses/HP sacks I rotate through enough no-save abilities (like the SE DoTs among other things) that the blast is just worked in enough to stack Vulnerability & debuffs. I haven't quite gone full Int focus yet, but I will be next life (which won't be until after crafting out stuff I want from the next update). My suspicion is that when I do go full Int next life, I'll see a (likely only slight) damage increase inspire of lowered offensive saves.

[Angelic-council]

Did some fast calculations on DC numbers for evocation since Eldritch Blast is boosted by evocation focus.

CHA: 16 base, 7 tome, 15 gear, 1 exceptional, 7 insight, 4 quality, 2 completionist, 2 ship buff, 2 Enlightened Spirit capstone, 6 Exalted Angel destiny -- 58 CHA.

Evo DC: 10 base, 9 spell level, 26 CHA, 1 Evo Focus, 1 Greater Evo Focus, 3 Sorcerer past lives, 2 Aura of Menace*, 3 Magister t2 twist, 6 Dwarvencraft Evo Focus (TF weapon), 3 Transcendental Magic, 6 Arcane Insight -- 70 DC.

Most of what I've been able to find suggest DC >70 is enough. If that is the case there is no reason to push CHA.

For a build that is relying on Eldritch Aura, Eldritch Burst and Spirit Blast there is no need to be CHA based.

* Aura of Menace is a -2 debuff to saves but effectively is +2 to DC.

People can build their characters however they want. Some people achieve good results (not better) as an INT warlock. Because when you apply certain playstyle, for example: wizard cast circle of death, wail of banshee and finger of death in quick succession and kill 1 monster due to all the neg level previously applied. Sure, wizard can kill with medicore DC.

My point would be, you can build a warlock melee, invest more into INT and you can still play and kill. However, it's not all about numbers only. INT only increases small amount of damage. Compared to full charisma warlock, but you do need investment if you are trying running hardest EEs. But actual result would be something like this.. INT warlock and Char warlock both starts good at lv1, char will dominate INT around mid level and high level char completely wins. In epics, char still has upper hand, but as it get closer to lv30. Charisma based will struggle, and INT just depends on playstyle: just play aggressive. Words can't describe this well, but warlock with top tier investment will completely beat INT.

[Baktiotha]

My point would be, you can build a warlock melee, invest more into INT and you can still play and kill. However, it's not all about numbers only. INT only increases small amount of damage. Compared to full charisma warlock, but you do need investment if you are trying running hardest EEs.

People are saying this but I'm not convinced that the numbers back them up. There's a thread on DC warlocks and the highest DCs talked about are ~72.

The trick, it seems, is to have enough without having too much CHA and then put the rest into INT. From that standpoint I guess it doesn't matter if the stat increases come from enhancements and destinies or if they come from stat increases as the character levels. When I look at the final numbers for INT and CHA the way I'm looking at it INT tops out around 66 and CHA tops out around 62.

Maybe the way to look at it isn't INT v CHA but what are the target numbers and how does a player get there.

[Baktiotha]

Interesting. I run my 'Lock completely different, yet came to a similar result.

I actually use zero of the ES tree.

I need to look at that. I play with ES because I typically play melee characters so jumping into the middle of battle just seems normal to me.

OTOH, I enjoy playing AA/DWS. I could see going the direction you've gone if I played with that mentality.

I need to give your idea some thought. :)

[Baktiotha]

When in primal sphere you should really consider shiradi

You could be right. I need to take another look at that.

[PermaBanned]

I need to look at that. I play with ES because I typically play melee characters so jumping into the middle of battle just seems normal to me.

OTOH, I enjoy playing AA/DWS. I could see going the direction you've gone if I played with that mentality.

I need to give your idea some thought. :)
I should offer some fair warning then: it's significantly squishier than what you're used to. Light Armor w/o Evasion, comparatively low (especially vs other Warlocks) P/MRR, and every build (Stat & Enhancement points, Feats, Twists, Gear) option spent on Damage instead of Survivability where able. For disclosure: Heroic Completionist, but only 1 Divine PL, no other Epic PLs, 3x PDK PL. The more Divine and Primal Pls you have, the more Survivability you might find with it.


You could be right. I need to take another look at that.
I do run my TS/SE build in Shiradi. Not so much for the Rainbow/Double Rainbow effects (though they're nice when they happen) as the Sonic & Force procs from the cores. I've also been toying at twisting in Storm Rage - not so much for uberness (I've read it's a suboptimal choice) as for awesomeness ;) Storm Rage + Evard's = a satisfyingly gnarly display of destruction ^^

[slarden]

I have not seen the answer to what the needed DC is.

I understand the assertion -- that if a build hits a fail on 1 DC it does more damage -- but I notice no one is posting about what that DC is.



That is because only the devs have access to all the enemy saves in all content - without that you can't put it into mathematical terms.

Alot of what I know comes mainly from running content when it was newer and I was running it frequently at the time when DC #s are different than they are today.

I can tell you for the new LE content I tweaked my DC from high 60s to mid 80s and I think the sweet spot for LE Content is 80-85 for GOO and 90s for fey/fiend although if you don't dump DC entirely and are in the low 70s you will get everything but the enemies with their highest save as will save.

Enemies typically have a high save in one stat that is near the top (examples include dice roll) in their range (high 70s to 90s except LE shroud). Then a middle stat that is maybe mid 60s-80s and then the low stats are what has the highest variation (high 40s to 80s is my best guess). If you walk into an LE raid with a 40s DC as was mentioned in some other posts except to land your spells on some of the low stat weaker enemies (think bats or villager as weaker enemies). For example in shroud part 1 the lowest fort enemies are the sorcerors which I know because they are sometimes immune to pk (fear immunity I believe) but die every time to my sub-optimal finger on my illusionist.

But keep in mind enemies get save buffs with dungeon alert also which totally screws with your #s.

Also for quite some time reflex was the lowest enemy save on average (easy to figure out by comparing my blaster/enchanter bard to my druid that had roughly equal DCs), but in more recent content will save is the lowest enemy save on average. In EE Amarath for example my earthquake and tentacles was nearly 100% but my enchantment and necro spells weren't as effective when the content was new and DC potential was much lower than now.

I ran wheloon and stormhorns EE daily for coms when it was newly released and my low 60s enchant and high 60s necro was almost no-fail in wheloon and many enemies saved in stormhorns. 60s almost never worked against the orc divines for either school at the time. High 50s earthquake was virtually no fail at the time in all quests.

So one strategy is to build for a no-fail DC or close to it. Another is to try to hit the middle and low saves which in LE content which is 70s (goo will save here and in my other examples- reflex and fort require higher) which is easy to hit and gets 50% - 66% maybe. Dumping DC entirely you will have some level of success with the low end of the low save enemies which are typically the weakest enemies anyhow. But there is a range and just like you can max char and still have a decent int, you can max int and still have a decent charisma and maybe be solid against the enemies where will save is their low or middle save.

What's easier to measure is spellpower because 1000 is a solid light spellpower target for light with max sustainable being over 100 points above that. So we know for sure each 10 points of spellpower adds about 1% dps. It's much harder to do that calculation for builds with saves in the middle range - I could guess though based on my testing but not on the forums where people will argue for reasons.

If you want to land your goo save in LE content almost all the time think 82-85. If you want to hit the low and mid save enemies only think 70. If you take away 30 points from cha and put it to int you drop from 85 to 70 so you are basically losing 15 DC (effectively the high will save enemies and some middle will save enemies) and gaining 15 spellpower for about a 1.5% spellpower increase on everything (eld blast slas, energy burst, shiradi procs, hellball)
and DC is only dropping on the eld blast pact damage. But in my experience max cha builds don't dump int and end up with a decent int, but int builds max con and int and dump cha entirely. With this build you aren't going to hit the needed DC except on the 5% roll and against some weak enemies that have lower saves, hp, damage, etc. to begin with.

I am not seeing any scenario where int is better on just these things alone. I think charisma wins slightly here in LE, but then throw in tentacles which does amazing dps on enemies with a high charisma even without a maxed out conjuration. Then add divine wrath as one extra burst for cha-based which goes against a will save and works only for cha/wis and not int. Divine wrath is very synergistic with an aoe bursting build.

Warlock is a very forgiving build because base damage isn't subject to save and the bonus light damage isn't subject to save (bonus light damage from ES should be subject to the same save as pact damage in my opinion and the bonus epic feat should be 4d4 pact damage instead of 2d6 base damage in my opinion). So you can build a strength build in unyielding sentinel if you want and still get through content because too much damage isn't subject to a save. A cha build will only do 11.5% more eld blast damage than a dc-dumping int build and 13% more eld blast damage than a dc dumping str build. An int build will have 1.5% more damage on energy burst and spellpower vs. a char build due to the higher spellpower and assuming DC is the same. Con builds lose out on energy burst and hellball.

[Baktiotha]

That is because only the devs have access to all the enemy saves in all content - without that you can't put it into mathematical terms.

<snip>

Warlock is a very forgiving build because base damage isn't subject to save and the bonus light damage isn't subject to save (bonus light damage from ES should be subject to the same save as pact damage in my opinion and the bonus epic feat should be 4d4 pact damage instead of 2d6 base damage in my opinion).

It is possible I suppose that the DCs in LE are set at a point where "no fail" is not possible without using Turbine Store potions, temporary boosts, and full investment into stat increases in ehancements, destinies, and feats. I have seen calculations pushing CHA to ~96 under those conditions.

I am not certain that the majority of players are willing to make that much of an investment.

I guess that's why I don't think it is in the best interest of most players to take that CHA focus. Pushing to reach the DC numbers, if stats need to be in the 90's for success, is just a bridge too far I think.

IMO being able to land reliably against the trash mobs is sufficient. And the indication seems to be that players can expect that at the much more attainable ~70 DC. We tend to group for LE raids so where one character is less capable the other characters compensate. It is group synergy.

Ultimately you make the critical observation at the end. It really makes no difference if people are of an opinion that damage should be one way or the other or that the epic feat ought to do one thing rather than what it does. What matters is how things work in the game at present.

I do not build based on what I think DDO should do. I build based on what DDO does right now. And right now the damage is coming from no save light boosted damage sources. Pointing out that pact damage will be ~14% less is misleading when that is the minor portion of the overall damage.

This does not represent my build so I might have missed a die here or there.

Pact damage: 14d6=45; Blast damage: 12d6=42; Light damage: 6d6=21. I make that 45 unresisted damage scaling 130% with spell power v 63 unresisted damage scaling 130% with spell power. Light spell power of ~1100 gives 1430% damage. I'm presuming that pact spell power is nowhere near 1000 but have not seen presentations on what people actually expect to carry.

Still, 63*14.3=900 with every 10 spell power increase adding 9 damage. If pact damage is ~800, my pact damage usually runs much more than 200 behind the light damage, then we'd have ~1040% damage. That is 45*10.4=468.

Half damage on save for pact is 234. If we divide by 9 we end up with 26, 26*10=260. So, I can boost light spell power by another 260 or I can go for the "no fail" pact DC.

It is worth noting that this is worse for builds running in Fey where evasion can completely negate the damage.

I think it might be worth posting how to get to the spell power numbers. My suspicion is that the actual difference between spell powers is much larger that 200.

Of course, some of the discussion is DC for other purposes than pact damage. In that conversation we also need to discuss spell penetration since many times DC spells are subject to spell resistance. That would be a good subject for another post as well.

So three things I think worth discussing: 1) how realistic is it to expect players to push much beyond 60 in character stats, 2) what are the actual spell powers players are running with, and 3) what are the spell penetrations needed for those other spells that builds are using (those that are not solely focused on blast/burst damages).

[Marshal_Lannes]

I can tell you for the new LE content I tweaked my DC from high 60s to mid 80s and I think the sweet spot for LE Content is 80-85 for GOO and 90s for fey/fiend although if you don't dump DC entirely and are in the low 70s you will get everything but the enemies with their highest save as will save.

.

This (2nd) thread is fascinating to me for three reasons. First, it illustrates that people rarely want to actually discuss something, they just want their point of view confirmed. Second, by almost every measure Warlock is the most powerful class in the game. You can almost blindly pick your feats and still do quite well with a Warlock. So that means people are really willing to argue over just about anything, including this should I take charisma, intelligence or constitution 'debate'. Finally, it once again points to an odd trend that always surfaces in these DC discussions. There is a whole segment of people that only believe in 'no fail' DC. Why even play a game with 'no fail' success? It is not a game when you can't lose, it is just a...I don't know, re-enactment? I bolded the above line. Low 70s works on pretty much everything but for some you might as well dump it if you can't reach mid 80s and for others let's bend over backwards to reach mid 80s even though low 70s works just fine. And remember this isn't a class that has to rely on this! The blasts/bursts are always going to work!

[slarden]

It is possible I suppose that the DCs in LE are set at a point where "no fail" is not possible without using Turbine Store potions, temporary boosts, and full investment into stat increases in ehancements, destinies, and feats. I have seen calculations pushing CHA to ~96 under those conditions.

I am not certain that the majority of players are willing to make that much of an investment.

I guess that's why I don't think it is in the best interest of most players to take that CHA focus. Pushing to reach the DC numbers, if stats need to be in the 90's for success, is just a bridge too far I think.

IMO being able to land reliably against the trash mobs is sufficient. And the indication seems to be that players can expect that at the much more attainable ~70 DC. We tend to group for LE raids so where one character is less capable the other characters compensate. It is group synergy.

Ultimately you make the critical observation at the end. It really makes no difference if people are of an opinion that damage should be one way or the other or that the epic feat ought to do one thing rather than what it does. What matters is how things work in the game at present.

I do not build based on what I think DDO should do. I build based on what DDO does right now. And right now the damage is coming from no save light boosted damage sources. Pointing out that pact damage will be ~14% less is misleading when that is the minor portion of the overall damage.

This does not represent my build so I might have missed a die here or there.

Pact damage: 14d6=45; Blast damage: 12d6=42; Light damage: 6d6=21. I make that 45 unresisted damage scaling 130% with spell power v 63 unresisted damage scaling 130% with spell power. Light spell power of ~1100 gives 1430% damage. I'm presuming that pact spell power is nowhere near 1000 but have not seen presentations on what people actually expect to carry.

Still, 63*14.3=900 with every 10 spell power increase adding 9 damage. If pact damage is ~800, my pact damage usually runs much more than 200 behind the light damage, then we'd have ~1040% damage. That is 45*10.4=468.

Half damage on save for pact is 234. If we divide by 9 we end up with 26, 26*10=260. So, I can boost light spell power by another 260 or I can go for the "no fail" pact DC.

It is worth noting that this is worse for builds running in Fey where evasion can completely negate the damage.

I think it might be worth posting how to get to the spell power numbers. My suspicion is that the actual difference between spell powers is much larger that 200.

Of course, some of the discussion is DC for other purposes than pact damage. In that conversation we also need to discuss spell penetration since many times DC spells are subject to spell resistance. That would be a good subject for another post as well.

So three things I think worth discussing: 1) how realistic is it to expect players to push much beyond 60 in character stats, 2) what are the actual spell powers players are running with, and 3) what are the spell penetrations needed for those other spells that builds are using (those that are not solely focused on blast/burst damages).

i also build for existing game - I've already show how little int helps - that is the simplest math. If you are going to add 260 spellpower you don't need to dump cha to do that so that is not a benefit of int builds. Spellpower diff is 15 for an int build which was already shown.

a con build that can get to a 70 dc in goo that is 50%-67% as effective as an 85 is a solid build choice in my opinion. It just seems so many people dump dc entirely.

You misunderstood my math. Total damage will be over 13% higher for someone in goo with an 80s dc. Vs a dc dumping build. The pact damage difference is already know - roughly double (97.5/52.5) if you have the dc vs dumping. If you factor in int spellpower it's more like 11.5% greater total damage but int build will have 1.5% higher energy burst ruin hellball.

[Enderoc]

People believe that small increments of anything (such as spell power) is worthless... Until they want to show high numbers in nickel and diming everything up to Yugo pots for people to go... Wow pretty...Whatever dudes...

It's like stretching your e-peens in showing your highest stat without consideration that neglecting the others makes you gimpy.

Play a monk a couple lives to realize balance is more essential than being a one trick pony.

Trust me max your intelligence at creation... Second Charisma, and play catchup with Charisma to level cap. That way you max your skill points and spell power to a satisfying point without losing much DC at all.

[Baktiotha]

First, it illustrates that people rarely want to actually discuss something, they just want their point of view confirmed.

Actually, I would be glad to be wrong. I think most serious players would be as well. We all hold points of view based on our past experiences and on our individual running of numbers but we don't often bounce those against one another in civil discussion. What normally occurs is someone starts bad mouthing the opposing points of view and it turns into an argument rather than a discussion.

Some of the information being presented is quite good for those who are looking to improve an already strong character class. There seem to be some very well thought out reasons to push DC in certain builds and play styles. It also appears that in others there isn't much reason to push the DC at all.

In some ways it is similar to what I've observed elsewhere, it is very much dependent on the player and what they are doing with the character. I think that those discussing this right now all hold a very similar point of view.

I did notice, BTW, the part you highlighted. Because I run in Great Old Ones where the pact save is Will that helps confirm for me that ~70 DC is a good target. And, because I don't use many of the other spells that require spell penetration or allow saves, I don't have a particular need to push much beyond that. But, what is true for me isn't true for every player. So that means having an adult conversation instead of the arguments seen in other threads actually is helping me at the very least, and hopefully others as well.

[duntduntduuun]

People are saying this but I'm not convinced that the numbers back them up. There's a thread on DC warlocks and the highest DCs talked about are ~72.

The thing you are missing is that warlocks have three different saves possible for their pact damage. not realizing this and lumping all three into this "I need 90 cha or I might as well not bother" philosophy (which is really more of an attempt to make a virtue of your choice right?).

in LE Reflex (Sonic warlocks) most mobs are hittable very regularly with a 65 to 70 DC there are of course some exceptions it's reasonable to hit this DC range with a 60 or 70 cha and reasonable evocation gear and feats. in fact it's pretty easy to do.
in LE Will (Acid) most mobs are hittable with a 60 to 80 DC (a little wider range on both ends than reflex there are some mobs that will save even against even a 100DC but again these are not your average mobs and you should consider yourself less
effective against these and live with it.

(live with it means you cast 50,000 point ruin on them, thats why you carry ruin after all)

in LE Fortitude most mobs need a 90 to 110 DC to be hit on any kind of reasonable basis (more than 30% but not no fail) and this means that you basically want to ignore fire pact damage either by taking a different pact or not bothering with evocation and cha

pumping int on a warlock is silly the amount of added damage you get is trivial compared to the power of pumping con or pumping cha. assuming you don't run in a wildly unoptimal destiny the amount you can pump int is 7 level ups and a few pieces of gear that you otherwise might not put on. For example maybe you sacrifice a gear slot for +4 INT mummy wrap belt that's really only a 2 point increase of spellcraft a truely meager return for a gear slot.

lets say 7 level ups 2 from putting 4 tainted scholar AP's into int and 2 mod from +4 quality int and +2 from festival int augment the other gear (+15 int and +6 insightful) is stuff any DPS warlock is going to fit in (arguable the int augment as well) to get the low hanging spellcraft boosting fruit so IMHO you don't get to count that as int you would have that other warlocks wont have, my 20 warlock TS/SE has 6 insight int and the augment and +17 int on a random gen piece that also has 2 good affixes 2 int from litany and 1 int from globe. in addition as a sonic warlock my spell power benefits from 11 ranks of perform and my cha boosts my perform skill, and I have force boosted by spellcraft, 185 sonic from gloves and 185 force from cloak. and the sonic reflex saves are failed more often by far than they are saved.

so 15 int or 7.5 modifier to spellcraft rounded down to 7 added spell power. first of all any warlock can get more than 2 spell power out of 4 AP's, so that's really 4 aps spent on a sub optimal amount of spell power, second of all that 7 modifier could have been 30 hit points times 7 a way more significant chunk of power than 7 more spell power.

so IMHO no matter how you slice it you're better off trying to make your pact save land. oh also cha makes your draconic burst land more as well, where as int leaves your pact damage as 95% save chance. so tack on aniother strong reason to go cha instead of int

edit clarification I know int also boosts draconic burst save, what i am saying is cha boosts both

[duntduntduuun]

yes yes I know I forgot initial build points but who cares warlocks are so roflstomp anyway if anything the op's just proving the point that even a silly build choice can lead to a faceroll build.

[Baktiotha]

yes yes I know I forgot initial build points but who cares warlocks are so roflstomp anyway if anything the op's just proving the point that even a silly build choice can lead to a faceroll build.

So, from 16 CHA I hit 70 DC which seems fine for GOO and Fey from what I'm reading. If I swap stat increases from INT to CHA that is 8 more CHA for 4 more DC. Maybe useful, maybe not.

But what I'm reading suggests that both INT and CHA are traps -- that the real benefit is in CON. Since the DC number is ~70 without stat point increases (or with them but without destiny/enhancement increases) and spellpower drops maybe 10 points at worst, the position being taken is that CON really should get the attention as 30*4 HP is worth more than the increase in either damage or DC.

Is that be your point?

[slarden]

People believe that small increments of anything (such as spell power) is worthless... Until they want to show high numbers in nickel and diming everything up to Yugo pots for people to go... Wow pretty...Whatever dudes...

It's like stretching your e-peens in showing your highest stat without consideration that neglecting the others makes you gimpy.

Play a monk a couple lives to realize balance is more essential than being a one trick pony.

Trust me max your intelligence at creation... Second Charisma, and play catchup with Charisma to level cap. That way you max your skill points and spell power to a satisfying point without losing much DC at all.

On 36 pt human I think 18 cha 16 int 16 con works really well. Reversing int and char gains you 1 spellpower and costs you one DC you can never reclaim until etr. No real reason to max int over char at the start unless you have a specific plan in mind to balance stats.

A house J pot gets you 20 spellpower and costs you like 10 plat. Going for 15 more spellpower with higher int by dumping charisma costs you 15 DC. The house J pot is just a much better deal.

[Baktiotha]

On 36 pt human I think 18 cha 16 int 16 con works really well. Reversing int and char gains you 1 spellpower and costs you one DC you can never reclaim until etr. No real reason to max int over char at the start unless you have a specific plan in mind to balance stats.

A house J pot gets you 20 spellpower and costs you like 10 plat. Going for 15 more spellpower with higher int by dumping charisma costs you 15 DC. The house J pot is just a much better deal.

Why not skip on increasing both INT and CHA and go for CON as was suggested a couple of posts up?

It looks by everyone's calculations like ~70 DC is attainable with 16 CHA and minimal work *and* that is estimated to be reliable in LE for GOO and Fey. 16 INT would land a few points back in final stat numbers but at a loss of only about 10 spell power.

So why not push CON as was suggested if running GOO or Fey?

[slarden]

Why not skip on increasing both INT and CHA and go for CON as was suggested a couple of posts up?

It looks by everyone's calculations like ~70 DC is attainable with 16 CHA and minimal work *and* that is estimated to be reliable in LE for GOO and Fey. 16 INT would land a few points back in final stat numbers but at a loss of only about 10 spell power.

So why not push CON as was suggested if running GOO or Fey?

Reliable yes in that it will get about 2/3 of enemies - and more con for some cha is a solid tradeoff. In my case I am not having survivability issues so I prefer a little more DC, but nothing is wrong with going for a 70 DC instead and gaining a bunch of hp in exchange. That is a much better answer than dumping dc entirely in my opinion.

[Angelic-council]

People are saying this but I'm not convinced that the numbers back them up. There's a thread on DC warlocks and the highest DCs talked about are ~72.

The trick, it seems, is to have enough without having too much CHA and then put the rest into INT. From that standpoint I guess it doesn't matter if the stat increases come from enhancements and destinies or if they come from stat increases as the character levels. When I look at the final numbers for INT and CHA the way I'm looking at it INT tops out around 66 and CHA tops out around 62.

Maybe the way to look at it isn't INT v CHA but what are the target numbers and how does a player get there.

I understand that philosophy here. If minimum required saves are DC60, for example, you don't really need any higher than that. As long as your spells are landing, I would stop giving more char, and give some credit into INT for extra spell damage. However, I can't deny that this idea is highly situational. End game in DDO is EE, (Legendary EE). DDO is fairy easy at first and extremely difficult in the end. So I agree with you that it's about target numbers and how does a player get there. You won't be able to have high INT, high CON, high Char, high spell power, high prr, mrr, high saves and just everything together. You also need to think about which feats and epic destiny you choose, because that will all tie together and end game will challenge your final decition.

What happens when you choose build like above is, you sacrifice around 10 primal ability score and 5 or possibly more DCs in exchange for 15 - 20 spell power. Not to mention, your ability to overcome enemies high saves are determined by how much DC and spell power your current character possess. DC requirements in EE are unbeatable with more INT invested warlock, unless you choose to run EH or EN. Some EH requires DC 75 - 80. If you insist to play charisma, you can build a tank warlock. But imagine, just how many times your spells will fail, and how much of a lose it will be: Divine wrath, energy burst, sunbolt, dragon breath are all charisma base (only arcane INT), then you have mass hold = extra 50% damage since they stun, finger of death/circle of death and wail of banshee, pack damage.

My friends, including myself play using a rhythm. We run from 1 room to another kiting monsters, then CC them all together for fast kills. You can't do that with full INT build. You could do it few updates ago, but not now. That's why maybe there are people who say you better go char rather than INT. Because they don't want to trade potential DCs with only little spell power.

[Baktiotha]

DC requirements in EE are unbeatable with more INT invested warlock, unless you choose to run EH or EN. Some EH requires DC 75 - 80.

That does not seem to be the consensus in this or other threads. Instead it appears to be very pact specific. Wizards for a long time have carried a variety of spells to attack the weakest save. Warlocks do not have quite as much flexibility. They pick a pact and are stuck with that -- so they are attacking very specifically Will or Fortitude or Reflex. In the case of Fey they not only have to contend with Reflex but also have to deal with evasion. The DC appears to be higher and lower depending on the mob and the save type.

I do notice a lot of preference for Fey with posters. That probably explains some of the insistence that players should go full DC. Reflex and evasion seem to argue for making the DC as high as you possibly can (particularly evasion as that negates pact damage). A more careful reading of what has been posted seems to say that Great Old Ones can get by very nicely with low to mid 70's. I did read some sentiment that Fiend should not be chosen due to the number of mobs resistant to fire damage in legendary content.

I don't remember well but I thought that fortitude was the most difficult save number for basic mobs since they are generally fighter like so naturally have higher fort saves. I thought will saves were weakest for basic mobs for somewhat the same reason. Caster mobs seem to have the opposite save pattern. Not sure on reflex but thought that ranged mobs did best in that regard.

So I suppose it depends on which mob type you are attacking as well. Now I know you can't always choose and that you cannot always avoid the mob type you don't like. Still, it seems that attacking will and fortitude cover more mobs.

So, for those running Fey I can see the passion for high CHA because they have a more difficult DC to deal with -- maybe not on the reflex specifically but they also have to worry about a total wiff if the mob evades.

I had not really paid much attention until these last few threads. But I think it might be a case where, in addition to everything else, there needs to be a disclaimer from the start concerning pact choice.

As I've said, I run in GOO because I like some of the other things GOO offers. But that means I'm attacking will with my pact damage and fort with Evard's and those are the easier DCs to attack -- at least that's what my memory tells me (and what other posts seem to have suggested). So for me the choice is INT or CON I think. I have to mull that one over.

For those in Fey, I can understand why they want to focus on CHA. The DCs are going to be higher, mostly because of the threat of evasion.

[Angelic-council]

That does not seem to be the consensus in this or other threads. Instead it appears to be very pact specific. Wizards for a long time have carried a variety of spells to attack the weakest save. Warlocks do not have quite as much flexibility. They pick a pact and are stuck with that -- so they are attacking very specifically Will or Fortitude or Reflex. In the case of Fey they not only have to contend with Reflex but also have to deal with evasion. The DC appears to be higher and lower depending on the mob and the save type.

I do notice a lot of preference for Fey with posters. That probably explains some of the insistence that players should go full DC. Reflex and evasion seem to argue for making the DC as high as you possibly can (particularly evasion as that negates pact damage). A more careful reading of what has been posted seems to say that Great Old Ones can get by very nicely with low to mid 70's. I did read some sentiment that Fiend should not be chosen due to the number of mobs resistant to fire damage in legendary content.

I don't remember well but I thought that fortitude was the most difficult save number for basic mobs since they are generally fighter like so naturally have higher fort saves. I thought will saves were weakest for basic mobs for somewhat the same reason. Caster mobs seem to have the opposite save pattern. Not sure on reflex but thought that ranged mobs did best in that regard.

So I suppose it depends on which mob type you are attacking as well. Now I know you can't always choose and that you cannot always avoid the mob type you don't like. Still, it seems that attacking will and fortitude cover more mobs.

So, for those running Fey I can see the passion for high CHA because they have a more difficult DC to deal with -- maybe not on the reflex specifically but they also have to worry about a total wiff if the mob evades.

I had not really paid much attention until these last few threads. But I think it might be a case where, in addition to everything else, there needs to be a disclaimer from the start concerning pact choice.

As I've said, I run in GOO because I like some of the other things GOO offers. But that means I'm attacking will with my pact damage and fort with Evard's and those are the easier DCs to attack -- at least that's what my memory tells me (and what other posts seem to have suggested). So for me the choice is INT or CON I think. I have to mull that one over.

For those in Fey, I can understand why they want to focus on CHA. The DCs are going to be higher, mostly because of the threat of evasion.

People choose char because they can run exalted angel and use divine wrath/sunbolt and more DC/heal option, if you twist arcane SLA and pick sense weakness, you can use mass hold, which is will base, increasing your trash killing speed. I can tell you that INT/CON warlock stand no chance what char warlocks can do. But there is nothing wrong with con/int as long as you enjoy it. You can be quite tanky with undying sentinel destiny. You already have free DPS and probably ruin/greater ruin.

[PermaBanned]

That does not seem to be the consensus in this or other threads. Instead it appears to be very pact specific. Wizards for a long time have carried a variety of spells to attack the weakest save. Warlocks do not have quite as much flexibility. They pick a pact and are stuck with that -- so they are attacking very specifically Will or Fortitude or Reflex. In the case of Fey they not only have to contend with Reflex but also have to deal with evasion. The DC appears to be higher and lower depending on the mob and the save type.

I do notice a lot of preference for Fey with posters. That probably explains some of the insistence that players should go full DC. Reflex and evasion seem to argue for making the DC as high as you possibly can (particularly evasion as that negates pact damage). A more careful reading of what has been posted seems to say that Great Old Ones can get by very nicely with low to mid 70's. I did read some sentiment that Fiend should not be chosen due to the number of mobs resistant to fire damage in legendary content.

I don't remember well but I thought that fortitude was the most difficult save number for basic mobs since they are generally fighter like so naturally have higher fort saves. I thought will saves were weakest for basic mobs for somewhat the same reason. Caster mobs seem to have the opposite save pattern. Not sure on reflex but thought that ranged mobs did best in that regard.

So I suppose it depends on which mob type you are attacking as well. Now I know you can't always choose and that you cannot always avoid the mob type you don't like. Still, it seems that attacking will and fortitude cover more mobs.

So, for those running Fey I can see the passion for high CHA because they have a more difficult DC to deal with -- maybe not on the reflex specifically but they also have to worry about a total wiff if the mob evades.

I had not really paid much attention until these last few threads. But I think it might be a case where, in addition to everything else, there needs to be a disclaimer from the start concerning pact choice.

As I've said, I run in GOO because I like some of the other things GOO offers. But that means I'm attacking will with my pact damage and fort with Evard's and those are the easier DCs to attack -- at least that's what my memory tells me (and what other posts seem to have suggested). So for me the choice is INT or CON I think. I have to mull that one over.

For those in Fey, I can understand why they want to focus on CHA. The DCs are going to be higher, mostly because of the threat of evasion.Here's the (potential) problem I see in building for "today's" DCs: you'll probably be under spec'd for "tomorrow's" DCs.

Sure, right now low 70s is dandy for Great Old Ones... In a coupe updates that could become high 70s. That few points of Cha you shaved off for a little more Spellpower is then likely a net loss on pact damage, leaving one in the position of having to respec or regret past decisions.

I realize that goes somewhat contrary to our previous discussion on 'Lock building - but then I'm one who constantly reincarnates to try new/tweak current builds anyway. For someone less inclined to constant respec'ing, DC focus is IMO the only way to go. Survivability concerns (the prime benefit of Con focus) can more easily be overcome/adapted to (for me anyway) by playstyle adjustments than short-comings in the DC & DPS departments. Build & level up points focused on DC (I prefer the 18/16/16 Cha/Int/Con base stats), gear for Survivability & DPS. It's much easier to swap between Cha/Int/Con (DC/DPS/Survivability) gear choices as needed, or as game changes require adapting, than it is to adjust initial build choices.

As always, ymmv.

[slarden]

A more careful reading of what has been posted seems to say that Great Old Ones can get by very nicely with low to mid 70's. I did read some sentiment that Fiend should not be chosen due to the number of mobs resistant to fire damage in legendary content.

Just to clarify what I said you will want to shoot for 82-85 to get most of the enemies where their high save is a will save. If you want to get the enemies where the high save is reflex and fort (not will) shoot for 70 and this will get you 2/3 of the enemies.

Sacrificing char for int I don't see ever giving you payback unless you are no-fail which 70 is not. Realistically some people have survivability issues and some just don't have the combo of past lifes, gear, tomes, etc. So if you can't get an 82-85 or need more hp you shouldn't give up and reroll, you can get by fine with a 70dc.

That doesn't mean it's optimal, but warlock is very forgiving so there is a wide range of builds that will perform acceptably compared to an assassin for example that is extremely hard to play and every sub-optimal build and gear decision will hurt your character real bad.

There are a high # of fire-resistant enemies at end game but that doesn't mean you shouldn't play fiend. Fiend builds are unique with hurl through hell as an amazing insta-kill ability which goes against a will save. I am currently playing a great old one blasting warlock (cha based) and a fiend necro warock (cha based). I find both build to be effective in end game content for completely different reasons.

I can see reasons why a multi-classed warlock or melee warlock might want to go int based- synergy with insightful reflexes and harper tree/kta. I don't understand why a pure casting warlock would ever choose int as the main stat, although dps loss isn't enormous. I see no possibility it will ever produce more dps and the down side seems significant. I can understand why people would go con for 400+ more hp and better fort save, but dps will be much less.

[Ykt]

That is 10 points more damage than I am losing *if* the mob saves against the pact damage.
The loss from pact damage is quickly overcome by the emphasis on light spell power.
I cannot see a reason to reverse those numbers as they represent just 4 points of DC or spell power either way. But, 4% of 87.5 right now is 3.5 more damage.
3.5 more damage, ok.

My light damage is in the hundreds, often thousands. The difference between 1003.5 dmg and 1000.0 dmg is negligible.

My Light spellpower is over 500 on my warlock multiclass (2 rogue).



The character has no enhancements or destiny increases to CHA. I have 3 destiny increases to CON.

You clearly know what you're doing. I guess I shouldn't need to suggest you use Empyrean Magic: Passive Bonus: Whenever you cast a fire, light, or healing spell you gain a stack of Empyrean Fervor. Each stack of Empyrean Fervor gives you +2 Sacred bonus to Universal Spell power, +1% Sacred Bonus to Critical Chance with all spells. Duration: 10 seconds. Stacks 10 times.

+20 spell power +10% spell crit chance, as long as you damage enemies (10 stacks will still take 100 seconds to deplete if you don't fight)

Nevermind, I'm sure you did the math on that and +40hp is vastly superior to +15% DPS.

And of course :
Radiant power: Passive Bonus: +[10/20/30] Light spellpower.

Completely useless. +1 CON is much better.

Also, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
Cunningham's Law states "the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer."

I see what you're doing, OP.

[Blastyswa]

You clearly know what you're doing. I guess I shouldn't need to suggest you use Empyrean Magic: Passive Bonus: Whenever you cast a fire, light, or healing spell you gain a stack of Empyrean Fervor. Each stack of Empyrean Fervor gives you +2 Sacred bonus to Universal Spell power, +1% Sacred Bonus to Critical Chance with all spells. Duration: 10 seconds. Stacks 10 times.

+20 spell power +10% spell crit chance, as long as you damage enemies (10 stacks will still take 100 seconds to deplete if you don't fight)

Nevermind, I'm sure you did the math on that and +40hp is vastly superior to +15% DPS.

And of course :
Radiant power: Passive Bonus: +[10/20/30] Light spellpower.

Completely useless. +1 CON is much better.

Kind of assumed the OP meant +3 constitution from his actual destiny, not twists, as implied by stating "I have +3 constitution from my destiny" as opposed to "I have +3 constitution twisted in".

[Blastyswa]

Survivability concerns (the prime benefit of Con focus) can more easily be overcome/adapted to (for me anyway) by playstyle adjustments than short-comings in the DC & DPS departments. Build & level up points focused on DC (I prefer the 18/16/16 Cha/Int/Con base stats), gear for Survivability & DPS. It's much easier to swap between Cha/Int/Con (DC/DPS/Survivability) gear choices as needed, or as game changes require adapting, than it is to adjust initial build choices.


One big difference between Con/Cha focus is actually that playstyle adjustment itself. For example, my warlock plays in sentinel with 2700 standing HP, 5k including temp. Instead of sitting there watching everyone get killed while I casually stay alive, I use +75% threat generation from spells from ES and +150% threat generation from US in addition to constant intimidate to pull every enemy I can possibly find to myself. Not only does this help keep other players alive, but it also clusters mobs together, making it easier for AoE and IPS attackers to hit all of them at once. Besides, using the typical starting splits for cha/int/con, it can be fairly easy to maintain high stats in at least 2/3 of the scores. My current warlock build uses 16/16/16/14 con/int/cha/str (So that I can pull strength lever on LETS) with all level ups going into constitution. If I dropped some int or con (Str isn't changing, I like being able to pull that lever) I could bring cha up to 18, and switch level ups over, getting +9 charisma. I could then switch to EA with 6 charisma upgrades, equip more evocation focus gear (My charisma boosting gear includes a +16 charisma ring, +7 insightful charisma LGS, and +4 quality charisma, so that's not much of an issue), and probably come out with 15 more charisma, 3 DC from EA, and 3 DC from Brazenband, for a grand total of 13 additional DC on my bursts. This would likely drop my HP by close to 1000 though (-11 constitution including my +4 in sentinel, lose vigor of battle, lose +20% insightful HP from US) which would require me to make those playstyle adjustments you mentioned, which basically means less aggression and drop the aggro generation.

Basically, my point was that initial build choices aren't going to majorly effect warlocks; If you're choosing between starting a stat at 16 or 18, and where to put level ups, you're missing out at most on 9 of that stat, which is 4 spellpower/4 DC/120 HP. Whichever way you go it's still pretty easy to spec into a role not matching your initial choice by using different gear/destiny.

[Ykt]

Kind of assumed the OP meant +3 constitution from his actual destiny, not twists, as implied by stating "I have +3 constitution from my destiny" as opposed to "I have +3 constitution twisted in".

Which warlock destiny gives +3 con? and why pick +3 con over other things?

[Baktiotha]

Here's the (potential) problem I see in building for "today's" DCs: you'll probably be under spec'd for "tomorrow's" DCs.

Meh, I don't live in tomorrow's world. Tomorrow might never come. If it does I'll probably rebuild for it in any case. Who knows, warlock might not be the class to play when that happens.

[Baktiotha]

Kind of assumed the OP meant +3 constitution from his actual destiny, not twists, as implied by stating "I have +3 constitution from my destiny" as opposed to "I have +3 constitution twisted in".


Which warlock destiny gives +3 con? and why pick +3 con over other things?


Actually I did mean +3 CON from destiny and not from twists. At the time I was running in Fury of the Wild. :)

Currently running in Shiradi Champion. Reason for running in either is because character is on ETR in primal sphere and I need to accumulate 6 million XP.

Will likely switch to Exalted Angel or Unyielding Sentinel once 6 million XP have been earned (~L28).

[PermaBanned]

Who knows, warlock might not be the class to play when that happens.Funny you should say that... My Warlock is just my {Divine Caster} waiting it's turn on the Enhancement pass wheel ;)

[KoobTheProud]

Funny you should say that... My Warlock is just my {Divine Caster} waiting it's turn on the Enhancement pass wheel ;)

It won't matter unless the Divine pass largely does away with mana costs for normal activities. You're going to get used to having high levels of optional mana to cast spells that other classes only touch in an emergency unless they have the spell as an SLA.

I'm hoping the Divine pass essentially removes healing mana concerns for Divines. That would allow them to use their mana pool the way a Warlock does, for added benefit instead of core concerns.

A few of the power Warlocks on the forums have been talking for awhile about how they are beginning to feel constrained on mana in a few builds. That's because they're tossing off meta'd Hellballs, Ruins and, Greater Ruins routinely that other arcane and divine classes would only touch when the glass had to be broken in an emergency. The Divine pass needs to give Divines that level of freedom or it will be a fail.

[Baktiotha]

People choose char because they can run exalted angel and use divine wrath/sunbolt and more DC/heal option, if you twist arcane SLA and pick sense weakness, you can use mass hold, which is will base, increasing your trash killing speed. I can tell you that INT/CON warlock stand no chance what char warlocks can do. But there is nothing wrong with con/int as long as you enjoy it. You can be quite tanky with undying sentinel destiny. You already have free DPS and probably ruin/greater ruin.

So, what I am hearing is that there are many considerations and a person should caveat their choices based on their build.

For example, I much prefer the "tanky" type build because I much prefer melee characters over caster characters. So my mindset from the very start is to build a melee character. I will likely always choose GOO (although Fiend has some appeal) and my only CC spell choice will probably be Evard's. I am unlikely to have more than 3 Strong Pact die. After making all of those caveats posters could argue about the choices but in the end it is what I like to play.

Does that suffice for me to argue vociferously for pushing one stat more than another? Or, does it mean that *for me and for what I enjoy* that I choose one over the others?

If it means the second of these then I think there's room to understand that I can make my choices while still being respectful and appreciative of the choices others make.

BTW, I have to look more into EA. Might be particularly good for a "tanky" build with Sense Weakness.