Warlocks!

[fmalfeas]

It's something we could try, and something like that will probably happen at some point in some part of Warlock without us doing it intentionally.

This course of events is 100% guaranteed to produce rage in about 27.4% of the player base, though, while trying it WITH saves and then removing the saves, if that's bad, is the kind of thing that produces -18.2% rage in 31.2% of the playerbase.



Displacement for a level 2 spell slot seems a bit low. Spells here are also not in the main spell list, so that's a consideration.

I just went by spell level from parent classes. Rage is Wiz/Sorc 3, so I pulled from the Wiz/Sorc 3 list on that one.

[fmalfeas]

Given what pact it is, I've turned to the Book of Vile Darkness for possibilities for that fiendish slot. All selected because they aren't big ouch spells (leaving that to the blast, of course) and also because they wouldn't need much, if any, animation work. Just an icon, and of course, spell code.

First we have Demonflesh - +1 natural armor per 5 caster levels, but unlike barkskin, it doesn't cap at 5.

Next up is Boneblast - deals 1d3 con damage to the target, and shatters one of their bones.

Then we have Abyssal Might - +2 profane bonus to Str, Dex, Con, and SR

And now, an 'attack' spell - Slow Consumption - it's a weak DoT that slowly siphons HP from the victim to the caster. Tabletop, it also takes sustenance from them, so you don't need to eat or drink while it's going, but hey, that doesn't apply in DDO.

And finally, Cruel Disappointment - This one is special, and likely harder to do. The target's next action automatically fails. But they are subject to a phantasm that makes them think it succeeded, until 1 round has passed. Then it ends, and they take -4 morale penalty to attacks, saves and skill checks for 1d6+1 rounds. Will save negates, it /IS/ an Illusion spell. People have been begging for more of those in game anyway, right? (From the Wiz/Sorc spell list, Book of Vile Darkness, not a Corrupt or Vile spell...just really mean.)

[ThomasHunter]

I've only read the dev comments and a few around them so I am unsure if this has been brought up already.

When Varg talked about the default ED being Primal, I thought initially, "ok". However, there was something not quite right and I realized that the stat in the right column is never CHR (peeks pver at ddowiki to make sure). That doesn't seem right as the "home" for Warlocks. Any chance to include CHR as a stat for at least one of these (I'm thinking Shiradi makes the most sense?).

Just a thought that I had! Thanks for reading!

[azrael4h]

This course of events is 100% guaranteed to produce rage in about 27.4% of the player base, though, while trying it WITH saves and then removing the saves, if that's bad, is the kind of thing that produces -18.2% rage in 31.2% of the playerbase.

On the other hand, if you came in here and posted "It's a lovely day today!", that would induce rage in about 27.4% of the player base. So I think you doing or not doing anything based on that is, at best, a waste of time.

On to the topic at hand:

What it looks like, at a glance, is a cross between Sorcerer and Bard. Limited spells, low SP like a Bard so limited casting, but SLAs (like a Sorc) to stretch out the duration of activity between shrines. Pretty much what I expected sadly, since I assumed from the devs' lack of manpower or resources that much of what we'll be getting will be, from now on, "best bang for the buck" development, with as minimal required coding and art as possible.

Due to a sudden lack of coffee, (I drank it all already, and need another 55 gallon drum), and my desire to play my guitar another hour or so in memory of the late, and one and only B. B. King, I'll focus on a few things I noticed.

The first thing I thought is that this could be modified to use as Cleric domains, which have been long demanded by the player base. A selectable feat which grants an additional spell at each spell level.

The second was that there really should be more choice here. Right now, I'd pick old guys for a 'caster' Warlock, Fey for other. I wouldn't bother with fiend. A couple more would be nice. Celestial/Archon, for the good-aligned Warlocks (and to enrage a few certain "it must be this way or all will die!" forum members. The same ones who complain about all the chutes and ladders in "Chutes and Ladders"), Dragon for those who absolutely must have something dragon related into everything (this IS Dungeons and Dragons after all).

The third is that I am Batman. And not the wussy one. I'm the one from the 1990's who tossed a guy into a vat of molten steel just to listen to his anguished cries as his flesh was seared off.

Forth, is the spells themselves. With 2 choices per level, and the choices we have, it's going to be largely the same. Every Warlock will have Displacement, bar none. Every Warlock will have Nightshield, bar none. Etc etc... I think, if you are going to use 5E style spells instead of free-use invocations, then they'll need either a bit more slots, or a better spell list. Despite me not having slept this week, and only glancing through the list, I think I had picked out my spell list for any Warlock I would build. There are no real choices here, just an illusion. Probably the biggest is whether to take Haste or not, but in the grand scheme of things, everyone who wants haste can take the feat anyway.

Likewise, the spell DCs will be 3 under a comparable Sorcerer for their few instakills or CC options. Worse under Wizard, which actually has support for DCs built in. So either you have to provide DC bonuses in the enhancements to push Warlock up to match Wizard, or no one will bother to take them. Given that end-game DC casting is predicated on debuffing critters first, I think even with a comparable DC, they'll still be ignored because we won't have the room to first debuff then cast, as we'll not have the spells to debuff in the first place.

Warlocks in PnP also were able to be built for a strong melee role. We should be able to summon the Glaive mentioned earlier, with a tree focused on making them viable melee combatants. With or without their Glaive. Druid Flame Blade is an example of how not to do it, as almost no one bothers with it due to so many fire-immune critters throughout the game.

All in all, I think each class should add something to the game, for 1, and 2 be able to support a couple different playstyles at least. While we end up with redundancy in roles filled (Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Monk for melees, etc), they each either appeal to specific player demographics and mindset (Barbarian) or are different in flavor to be worthwhile (Monk).

Warlock does nothing new here. It's either a Bard with a no-sp nuke and a more restricted spell list, or a Sorcerer without the variety of nukes, and a more restricted spell list and fewer sp. In a group context, I fail to see why I would bring a Warlock to my guild runs on Friday, rather than a traditional Wizard or Sorc. Or for that matter, Spellsinger Bard With the lack of a melee-centric capability, I certainly wouldn't try to bring one instead of a Warchanter or Swashbuckler-based Bard, which brings much more to a party dynamic, in terms of buffs, as well as being strong in their own right (I've ran both post-upgrade Warchanter and Swashbuckler, so I'm well acquainted with them. My PD character is a Spellsinger as well). It's already been admitted to being ill-suited as an archer character. It currently has no or limited healing being shown, so out there. So why would I be a Warlock in either my PD group or my static guild runs?

I'm am not really concerned about what you bring to DDO, as long as it is fun, and not priced so stupidly that I'd rather spend my self-imposed limited entertainment budget on something else. So why should I spend my budget on Warlock, as it is now?

[Angelic-council]

On the other hand, if you came in here and posted "It's a lovely day today!", that would induce rage in about 27.4% of the player base. So I think you doing or not doing anything based on that is, at best, a waste of time.

On to the topic at hand:

What it looks like, at a glance, is a cross between Sorcerer and Bard. Limited spells, low SP like a Bard so limited casting, but SLAs (like a Sorc) to stretch out the duration of activity between shrines. Pretty much what I expected sadly, since I assumed from the devs' lack of manpower or resources that much of what we'll be getting will be, from now on, "best bang for the buck" development, with as minimal required coding and art as possible.

Due to a sudden lack of coffee, (I drank it all already, and need another 55 gallon drum), and my desire to play my guitar another hour or so in memory of the late, and one and only B. B. King, I'll focus on a few things I noticed.

The first thing I thought is that this could be modified to use as Cleric domains, which have been long demanded by the player base. A selectable feat which grants an additional spell at each spell level.

The second was that there really should be more choice here. Right now, I'd pick old guys for a 'caster' Warlock, Fey for other. I wouldn't bother with fiend. A couple more would be nice. Celestial/Archon, for the good-aligned Warlocks (and to enrage a few certain "it must be this way or all will die!" forum members. The same ones who complain about all the chutes and ladders in "Chutes and Ladders"), Dragon for those who absolutely must have something dragon related into everything (this IS Dungeons and Dragons after all).

The third is that I am Batman. And not the wussy one. I'm the one from the 1990's who tossed a guy into a vat of molten steel just to listen to his anguished cries as his flesh was seared off.

Forth, is the spells themselves. With 2 choices per level, and the choices we have, it's going to be largely the same. Every Warlock will have Displacement, bar none. Every Warlock will have Nightshield, bar none. Etc etc... I think, if you are going to use 5E style spells instead of free-use invocations, then they'll need either a bit more slots, or a better spell list. Despite me not having slept this week, and only glancing through the list, I think I had picked out my spell list for any Warlock I would build. There are no real choices here, just an illusion. Probably the biggest is whether to take Haste or not, but in the grand scheme of things, everyone who wants haste can take the feat anyway.

Likewise, the spell DCs will be 3 under a comparable Sorcerer for their few instakills or CC options. Worse under Wizard, which actually has support for DCs built in. So either you have to provide DC bonuses in the enhancements to push Warlock up to match Wizard, or no one will bother to take them. Given that end-game DC casting is predicated on debuffing critters first, I think even with a comparable DC, they'll still be ignored because we won't have the room to first debuff then cast, as we'll not have the spells to debuff in the first place.

Warlocks in PnP also were able to be built for a strong melee role. We should be able to summon the Glaive mentioned earlier, with a tree focused on making them viable melee combatants. With or without their Glaive. Druid Flame Blade is an example of how not to do it, as almost no one bothers with it due to so many fire-immune critters throughout the game.

All in all, I think each class should add something to the game, for 1, and 2 be able to support a couple different playstyles at least. While we end up with redundancy in roles filled (Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Monk for melees, etc), they each either appeal to specific player demographics and mindset (Barbarian) or are different in flavor to be worthwhile (Monk).

Warlock does nothing new here. It's either a Bard with a no-sp nuke and a more restricted spell list, or a Sorcerer without the variety of nukes, and a more restricted spell list and fewer sp. In a group context, I fail to see why I would bring a Warlock to my guild runs on Friday, rather than a traditional Wizard or Sorc. Or for that matter, Spellsinger Bard With the lack of a melee-centric capability, I certainly wouldn't try to bring one instead of a Warchanter or Swashbuckler-based Bard, which brings much more to a party dynamic, in terms of buffs, as well as being strong in their own right (I've ran both post-upgrade Warchanter and Swashbuckler, so I'm well acquainted with them. My PD character is a Spellsinger as well). It's already been admitted to being ill-suited as an archer character. It currently has no or limited healing being shown, so out there. So why would I be a Warlock in either my PD group or my static guild runs?

I'm am not really concerned about what you bring to DDO, as long as it is fun, and not priced so stupidly that I'd rather spend my self-imposed limited entertainment budget on something else. So why should I spend my budget on Warlock, as it is now?

Very true. Soul eater for example. Soul eating warlocks are specialized in instant killing. A wizard will receive 1 necro DC from PM, 1 DC from AM and 1 DC from lich form as well as extra 2 DCs (+ 4 intelligence) = 8 more DC compared to warlock level 6 wail of banshee. Now, by adding competable DC in soul eater or new instant kill spell would help.

[HatsuharuZ]

Probably. (We aren't as convinced as others that Warlock is an inherently feat-starved class. Sure, my Sorcerer would love more feats, but pretty easily manages to get the ones he feels he needs. Warlock isn't so different.)

There is a small but significant difference between Warlocks and Sorcs, Varg. The Sorcerer has elemental savant, and twice the number of spell slots. In heroics, at least, the sorc can clear most rooms with only a few key presses, starting at level 6.

I'm not sure we agree completely on this. The classes need to be balanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean powering up each spell.

It's not really about balance, Varg. It's about hard choices, and the usefulness of the spells on the current Warlock spell list. I look at the spell list and think "wizards have most of these spells, more spell points, and higher DCs. Why do I want to play a warlock"? What am I going to use at level 20+, and how relevant is that spell going to be to my survival? I can see switching in the utilities/buffs at lower levels, but those spells get less and less useful as a player gets closer to epics.

Next, take a look at the spells themselves, or at least the first level ones. As a wizard or sorcerer, I can safely ignore these, or switch them out for utilities (jump, tumble, etc.) , which I have enough spare slots and spell points to make use of. However, a warlock only gets *two* slots of each level. There are no spare slots here, and the less you have of anything, the longer it has to last, or the more use you have to get out of it. Warlocks are not "feat-starved" I think, but they are "spell-starved", and unlike in 3.5 none of these can be used as much as the player wants, nor are they spells that warlocks get. Some of the warlock spells are slightly better versions of arcane spells, at least the ones that aren't some sort of potent passive ability.

Thirdly, what are you going to do, if not improve the wizard spells you are already giving to warlocks? Regardless of my reasons, this spell list needs improvement. All of the offensive (as in harmful) spells are either the ones that other casters use (and use better!), or they are the ones that other casters have, but don't use at all.

We're probably least happy with this choice for pact spells, and we're open to ideas for other options for a level 2 Fiend spell. It's a difficult choice, because we'd like to not take "staples" out like Blur, for instance. (That also means that this spot is a place we might be more likely to create a custom spell to fill a hole, but exploring many options is best.)

Hey Varg, remember that festival cookie that gives "Infernal Power" to the one who eats it? Give that a spell point cost and put it in there instead of Rage.

[Xaeria]

I haven't read all replies, apologies if this has been asked already.
1) When will Warlock be released?
2) Will it be f2p? If not, around how many TP will it cost?

Seems like an interesting class, I'd love to play it. I want to plan my TP spending and TRing around this if it's relatively soon. ????

[Drakos]

NWN is based on 4E and they are using 3&5 plus it would take to much work for to little gain especially for a cosmetic effect

No... NWN is based on 3e, NWN II is based on 3.5e, Neverwinter Online is based on 4e.

[XxJFGxX]

There is a small but significant difference between Warlocks and Sorcs, Varg. The Sorcerer has elemental savant, and twice the number of spell slots. In heroics, at least, the sorc can clear most rooms with only a few key presses, starting at level 6.



It's not really about balance, Varg. It's about hard choices, and the usefulness of the spells on the current Warlock spell list. I look at the spell list and think "wizards have most of these spells, more spell points, and higher DCs. Why do I want to play a warlock"? What am I going to use at level 20+, and how relevant is that spell going to be to my survival? I can see switching in the utilities/buffs at lower levels, but those spells get less and less useful as a player gets closer to epics.

Next, take a look at the spells themselves, or at least the first level ones. As a wizard or sorcerer, I can safely ignore these, or switch them out for utilities (jump, tumble, etc.) , which I have enough spare slots and spell points to make use of. However, a warlock only gets *two* slots of each level. There are no spare slots here, and the less you have of anything, the longer it has to last, or the more use you have to get out of it. Warlocks are not "feat-starved" I think, but they are "spell-starved", and unlike in 3.5 none of these can be used as much as the player wants, nor are they spells that warlocks get. Some of the warlock spells are slightly better versions of arcane spells, at least the ones that aren't some sort of potent passive ability.

Thirdly, what are you going to do, if not improve the wizard spells you are already giving to warlocks? Regardless of my reasons, this spell list needs improvement. All of the offensive (as in harmful) spells are either the ones that other casters use (and use better!), or they are the ones that other casters have, but don't use at all.



Hey Varg, remember that festival cookie that gives "Infernal Power" to the one who eats it? Give that a spell point cost and put it in there instead of Rage.

+1

[Drakos]

For everyone complaining about alignments: Both 4e and 5e Warlocks have no alignment restriction. Varg stated in the first post that 5e is a major inspiration for DDO Warlock class. The same can be said about them having a spell list instead of invocation list, but then on 5e they can recover spells faster than the other casting classes (only requires a short rest instead of an extended rest). So they end up using a lot more spells than their full caster cousins.

In 5e they still have Invocations in addition to spells.

As for your comment about alignment, he stated "Warlock design draws from a variety of pen and paper editions, but primarily 3.5 and 5th edition." This is evident in the way they are doing spells. However since the stattement also included 3.5e, and since they are enforcing 3,5e alignment restrictions for all the other classes, there is NO reason not to with Warlock. In my opinion there are valid reasons to restrict it.

[FuryFlash]

I have been thinking more on what a melee Warlock would look like. At first, this did not particularly interest me, but now that I have thought about it, it would be really cool. What I believe you guys have introduced so far in terms of melee is the ability to turn your eldritch blast into an aura, and then be able to use weapons normally, correct? This is cool and all, but something else that I and probably some others here are looking for is the ability to change your eldritch blast into a melee weapon. Now, I'm not too familiar on what exact eldritch melee weapons Warlocks use in D&D, but to me, simply shaping the blast into a melee weapon would be really cool. The damage values wouldn't even have to change for me to use it. Maybe, have a few different types of weapons it could become? Then, have enhancements somewhere that improve it's damage and other bonuses.

More later. What do you guys think?

(I'm tired, this might not make sense )

[Drakos]

Even that is too much. Remember that Artificers are the ones supposed to be masters of UMD, and even them only get a +2 bonus (technically, a -2 DC, but the end result is the same). Warlocks will already have an advantage of being a Cha-based class with UMD as a class skill. It doesn't have to get any UMD bonus to make the skill viable.

I disagree, In PnP Warlocks are also masters of UMD. It is a class skill and they get Skill Mastery with it. They even have special uses of UMD in the creation of magic items, whereas Artificers follow the normal rules except for the temporary ones with Imbue.

[Drakos]

So many cry babies asking for alignment restrictions because they don't know how to build strong multiclass toons.

It's got nothing to do with my ability to build multiclass characters. For me it is about the class it is supposed to be portraying and the loss of flavor by removing the restriction. Yes, I also think it would be to easily abused by the "uber-build of the week" club, but to me that is much less important. I don't care how uber a character is compared to mine.

[Moonivy]

Your so called "facts" are just your opinions. Heavily-biased. Guess you are the one with the butthurting, instead.

Alignment in DDO matters. Try to make a bladeforged that is a bard out of the blue. Ops, you can't. There, it matters.

I fail to see how that 'matters'. You're still a lawful good character running and killing celestial beings in running with devils. Your attempt to disprove me fails. Fact of the matter is, with a bit of effort you can make a blade forged bard. Sure takes a little bit of effort but it can still be done. The fact that alignment can be changed with ddo points rather than actions? Yeah, alignment does nothing in ddo. There is still no reason a warlock can not be any alignment.


Also, they're still facts. Take a gander in the dnd books. They talk about how warlocks can be pact bound by ANY creature powerful enough. Fiends, ANGELS, DRAGONS, and FEY. Look at that. 3 of the 4 can be of lawful good alignment. Oh my!

[Drakos]

Changes to pact damage, especially saves, are still in discussions and testing. Tentatively, Force damage can be converted to Bane with a tier 3 enhancement in Tainted Scholar.

See the problem here is it either forces all Warlocks to spend the AP's to get tier 3 here, or be useless vs. some content. So either all Warlocks will be Tainted Scholar, or will be really weak in one of the other two branches due to such a deep cut into Tainted Scholar.

[XxJFGxX]

It's got nothing to do with my ability to build multiclass characters. For me it is about the class it is supposed to be portraying and the loss of flavor by removing the restriction.

Flavor has been removed from this game long ago. It all comes down to functionality.

[Xoham]

I want to explicitly say that this is a great and well written post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to it and the numerous other posts in this thread - particularly on your weekend!

These are some points we've been hearing (and well stated here). That said, this is something that's changed during different editions, and DDO itself doesn't use the "normal' spell casting mode for even Wizards or Sorcerers. Artificers don't literally do "Infusions", they basically just cast spells. We do want to respect the source materials, but sometimes translations need to be made or should be made for making DDO the best game we can. It's definitely a judgement call on how, when, and exactly where these translations are done.

We haven't really been convinced by "fighters can be Draconic Incarnations too!" It's true, but we'd expect a pure Warlock to be somewhat better at a traditional D.I. than a pure Fighter, especially in the area of spell casting.

Ok, I will have a go at convincing you then

I believe a Warlock will indeed make a better traditional Draconic Incarnation than a fighter even without giving a Warlock spell points, and in the exact way it should be better. Primarily, this is for the same reason why a monk already makes a better traditional Draconic Incarnation than a fighter: there are some class abilities that synergise well (I am also attempting to convince management ). For example, a monk with enhancements in the Henshin Mystic tree will have additional fire spell power, additional fire critical chance, and cause reduced fire resistance in enemies. All of these make a monk a better traditional Draconic Incarnation than a fighter, and all without spell points. In the same way, a Warlock's enhancements are very likely to provide additional spell power and spell critical chance. Secondarily, a Warlock is even more likely than a monk to also take feats relevant to the traditional Draconic Incarnation. These include spell focus feats and meta-magic feats. They may even consider feats which give additional spell critical chance for their eldritch blasts, such as Magical Training and Mental Toughness (which of course would also give spell points). So both "fighters can be Draconic Incarnations too!" and "pure Warlock would be a somewhat better traditional Draconic Incarnation than a pure fighter" are both true even without giving Warlocks spell points!

I would also point out that spell points here are really a solution to a problem that only applies in epic levels with epic destinies, and I am trying to convince you that it isn't necessary even there. I think a big part of the problem here is the lack of a Warlock epic destiny, which I know you would like to include with more development resources. If such a destiny existed that was the "natural fit" for the class, as there are for all other classes (save artificer), then choosing to take Magical Training and selecting say Draconic Incarnation (or say Exalted Angel) would instead be seen as an interesting alternative for an Epic Warlock, and not as an expected norm that must work extremely well.

The difference between PnP and DDO is part of the issue that we're trying to work around. Wizards don't have only 2 level 8 spells per rest at level 16. This simply isn't how DDO works, so trying to design as if that were the case is something we tend to find confusing and leads to weird designs that don't fit DDO, but rather fit some other game that isn't DDO.

These are good and concrete pieces of feedback, but it's not clear from this feedback what the desired changes are, exactly, either within the system proposed or not. We hope and expect more players look at this kind of detail and give us there thoughts. We don't consider it an obviously inherent problem for Warlocks to be better in some ways than Sorcerers, for instance. It's something that is good to bring up and worry about, however. It's not clear that all spell levels are in the right place, and it's easy to overlook particular consequences that may actually be really important.

I'll let the world in on a secret: I suspect no one in the world is more worried about DDO Warlocks being OP more than me.

Some of this falls broadly into the "boy it's hard to balance without actually playtesting". We actually hate putting out ANY numbers this early because there's a good chance they're wrong. But players hate not getting numbers, so we have to try. And, in fact, clever posters like you do sometimes find things that we should pay extra attention to, so it's really for the best that we do try as early as we can. (There's just a lot of stuff that's best we get done as early as we can...)

Issue summary

In terms of the point I was trying to illustrate in showing Warlocks can cast Wail of the Banshee before a wizard and sorcerer, it is essentially one of class uniqueness. I think wizards and sorcerers should have first access to (and in most cases have the only access to), and be the best at casting, level 9 wizard and sorcerer spells! I know that for some particular spells, such as Otto's Sphere of Dancing, it is deemed to be very bard-like, and thus available as a much lower level spell to a bard. However, the proposed spell book contains essentially most of the non-damaging high level wizard and sorcerer spells. These aren't Warlock-like in the sense that enchantment spells are bard-like. Under the initial proposal, Warlock will get access to them first, and have enough spell points to cast them numerous times. This seems to me to remove the unique class feel of wizards, and particularly sorcerers.

I also do not believe that the exclusion of damaging spells is sufficient to make Warlocks unique. It is not uncommon for the high level wizard and sorcerer spells used by wizards and sorcerers to be non-damaging. To give two specific examples: use of Wail of the Banshee, Circle of Death, Finger of Death, and Energy Drain by a necromancer is quite a common method of dispatching monsters; use of Hold Monster, Mass and Otto's Sphere of Dancing by an enchanter, followed by Epic Destiny abilities such as Energy Burst, or cast purely to help other party members, is another common method of dispatching monsters. A Warlock will be able to perform these same functions. However, whilst the necromancer and enchanter examples are sometimes not able to deal large amounts of damage to boss monsters, the same Warlock will not have this problem courtesy of Eldritch Blast.

For the reasons of the above two paragraphs, it seems to me to the proposed Warlock is as powerful, if not more prior to level 20, in what is the only feature of wizards and sorcerers -- casting wizard and sorcerer spells -- and Warlocks have other features too!

Desired changes

In terms of what my desired changes would be, you can probably guess that they involve no spell points, and unlimited casting, but I will attempt to give some detail in any case Obvious disclaimer: I am not a game designer!

First, I would change the number of invocations. The proposed Warlock receives approximately 9 infinitely usable eldritch blast modification invocations (3 eldritch blast shapes - chain, cone, aura, and I am guessing 6 eldritch essences in the Tainted Scholar enhancement tree), 18 spells limited by spell points (6 based on pact, 12 free choice), and approximately 4 infinitely usable pact/enhancement abilities (again I am assuming a little, but there are mentioned options that are damage-over-time, debuff, death effects, crowd control, confusion, buff aura, Dark Delirium, Misty Escape/Hurl Through Hell/Create Thrall). For comparison, the traditional edition 3.5 Warlock receives 12 infinitely usable invocations (including all blast shapes and eldritch essences). Ultimately, for Warlock, I support a smaller number of unlimited invocations, over a greater number of spell-point-limited invocations. Specifically, I would:

• keep all of the already infinitely castable spell-point-free abilities (the blast shape modifications, eldritch essences, and pact/enhancement abilities);
• change the 6 pact based spells into infinitely castable spell-point-free invocations balanced only by cool-down; and
• reduce the number of "free choice" spells from 12 (2/2/2/2/2/2) down to 8 (2/2/2/2), and make them infinitely castable spell-point-free invocations balanced only by cool-down.

Second, I would change the spell lists. Of course, we would both like to have warlock specific invocations, but given development resources constraints I understand we are likely restricted to mostly choosing existing spells. I do like the binding chain invocation as it seems quite thematically appropriate and is new to players, I also quite like the simple spell modifications such as recolouring Entangle to make blue Chilling Tentacles, and say recolouring Wall of Fire to make say purple Wall of Perilous Flame. But I won't dwell on any of that further. In terms of wizard and sorcerer spells, I described above that I think that the current high level proposed Warlock spell list is both too powerful, and takes away the uniqueness of wizards and sorcerers. I would do either one of the following:

• remove high level wizard and sorcerer spells (such as level 9 spells), and instead give the "free choice" invocations (2/2/2/2) options that match the power of least (say Obscuring Mist), lesser (say Charm Monster), greater (say enhanced Wall of Fire, not Finger of Death), and dark (say single-target mass frog, not Wail of the Banshee) invocations; or
• keep an expanded list similar to the current one but greatly increase the cool-downs (so that sorcerer would have the smallest cool-down, then wizard, then Warlock).

Finally, although it wasn't raised in the original post, the issue of epic spells was raised in this thread by Ayseifn: I would also introduce greatly increased cool-down, spell-point-free versions, of epic spells.

If you know you are going in alone against Helmed Horrors, we suggest making sure you have Eldritch Essence: Penetrating Blast, from the Tainted Scholar tree. Yes, I'm being a bit unfair with my insider knowledge.

Sounds ok to me - glad you have it covered in any case

We hope choosing a pact is a deeply meaningful choice. Our initial impressions have mostly been that Fey is favored over other Pacts. We'd like things on the desirability and power level of Abundant Step to be in there, but you should be losing things of equal desirability from other trees. This is actually one of the reasons we are tending towards having saving throws on damage based on the same saving throw bonuses that pact provides - that aspect of Saving throws helps balance Fey vs. the other Pacts (while still letting them deal damage).

Fair enough, sounds like you are pretty on top of the issue.

Simple weapons and Light armor!

No surprises and makes sense!

I encourage anyone suggesting that Warlocks not be able to use any metamagics think about what that means for the larger class design. My sorcerer wouldn't know what to do with all his feat slots if metamagics were not an option (and saving throws didn't matter!) We may also make some more general, selectable feats for customizing Warlock (epic feats are more likely than heroic ones), but what feats are Warlocks expected to take, if not some metamagics? Similarly, this is one of the reasons we are likely to make Eldritch Blast get boosted by Evocation related feats - it lets you build your Warlock differently from other Warlocks, choosing to focus on that aspect.

From a game design & build variety stance, it's unfortunate to see suggestions for no metamagics or no saving throws at all on Eldritch Blast. Yes, we can see how all Warlocks might be more powerful or simpler without having those drawbacks. Every Warlock could deal full maximum damage all the time at every level without any build decisions or requirements to reach that maximum power. But that's not what DDO is about! If choosing a Fey patron means you worry more about your saving throws than Fiendish Warlock, who worry more about piercing damage resistance than Great Old Ones, who worry more about dealing with bosses because charm effects don't work on them... that's interesting and good gameplay before you even step into the game. That encourages variety in class builds and character designs. It's good for DDO if players argue about what Pact is best and worrying about the weakness of each, similarly for enhancement trees and similarly for Warlock vs. other classes.

If players aren't worrying, something has gone terribly wrong.
/readyforthequoting

For what it's worth, my character is currently a two-weapon fighting sorcerer who only has one metamagic feat (Heighten); instead I chose to take numerous melee feats. So I can definitely empathise with your position about feat starvation not really being an issue.

I had originally thought that Warlocks would be expected to take one or two feat lines: one like Invocation Focus, Greater Invocation Focus, Epic Invocation Focus (+1/2/3 DCs to Invocations); and possibly the Spell Penetration Feat line. It sounds like you are likely going to make Eldritch Blast an evocation spell, so the Spell Focus: Evocation line will effectively be the former. If spell penetration isn't going to affect Eldritch Blasts, which sounds like it is the case, then I don't have any really strong objections to Maximise and Empower. Mostly, I just don't want them to be the same as sorcerers - of course, having no spell points would also achieve that! An epic feat like Improved Eldritch Blast also sounds like a good idea.

[Ayseifn]

I encourage anyone suggesting that Warlocks not be able to use any metamagics think about what that means for the larger class design. My sorcerer wouldn't know what to do with all his feat slots if metamagics were not an option (and saving throws didn't matter!) We may also make some more general, selectable feats for customizing Warlock (epic feats are more likely than heroic ones), but what feats are Warlocks expected to take, if not some metamagics? Similarly, this is one of the reasons we are likely to make Eldritch Blast get boosted by Evocation related feats - it lets you build your Warlock differently from other Warlocks, choosing to focus on that aspect.

From a game design & build variety stance, it's unfortunate to see suggestions for no metamagics or no saving throws at all on Eldritch Blast. Yes, we can see how all Warlocks might be more powerful or simpler without having those drawbacks. Every Warlock could deal full maximum damage all the time at every level without any build decisions or requirements to reach that maximum power. But that's not what DDO is about! If choosing a Fey patron means you worry more about your saving throws than Fiendish Warlock, who worry more about piercing damage resistance than Great Old Ones, who worry more about dealing with bosses because charm effects don't work on them... that's interesting and good gameplay before you even step into the game. That encourages variety in class builds and character designs. It's good for DDO if players argue about what Pact is best and worrying about the weakness of each, similarly for enhancement trees and similarly for Warlock vs. other classes.

If players aren't worrying, something has gone terribly wrong.
/readyforthequoting

Magical Training(yeah I know it's locked in now as one of their feats)
Mental Toughness
Improved Mental Toughness
Spell Penetration
Greater Spell Penetration
Epic Spell Penetration
Spell Focus
Greater Spell Focus
Epic Spell Focus
Mobile Spellcasting(since no Quicken)
Maybe shield feats, maybe force of personality, etc.

For a long time the THF feat did nothing for staff users as you got zero glances, it was a fun time because you could do interesting things with feats that not many builds could outside of feat heavy ones like fighters. Now it's just another feat tax like every other melee, take 3 style feats, precision and or PA as well as imp crit leaving only 1-2 feats to differentiate yourself. Some went with cleaves and OC, others whirlwind and the like, if you open up options people will find uses for those feats.
They'd play very differently and have different options this way instead of feeling like a more limited sorc with a blast, only issue is you miss out on metas for epic abilities but that could be rolled into the enhancement trees somewhere.

I can see why you'd go this way but it does dilute the flavour a bit, the recycled spells don't help much here either. Will have to see the trees first though, and how the blasts work in motion. There could be some really interesting things in the trees to make them unique still and blast could be a big thing gameplay wise.

[Ineffable]

These are added to the spells you know. Tentatively, any level 20 Warlock will have direct castable access to 3 spells per spell level - per level, 2 would be chosen, and another would come from the Pact.


/readyforthequoting

Ahh, the way it was worded before made it seem like pacts just added to spell choices for the slots. I withdraw my previous complaint about the class.

[Drakos]

We're doing a bit of translation here for DDO, with a combination of various editions. Alignment restrictions for Warlocks have varied over time. We feel it's pretty reasonable to not be able to get full Fiendish benefits as a Lawful Good character, but at the same time there's a lot of Warlocks (including 3.5) that run counter to that concept, such as Enlightened Spirit. Alignment is still an active discussion, but as always we're trying to do what's best for DDO, and not slavishly follow one particular set of rules, out of the many rules written over the past four decades. We know some players would prefer sticking as closely as possible to one ruleset (though not all of those players necessarily agree on which one), but we have to try to do right by as many DDO players as we can.

Then why have ANY alignment restrictions in the game? Why not allow that Barbarian / Monk, after all one is only driven by Rage and the other by Inner Peace. It's about the FLAVOR of the class as well as any potential OP builds. By allowing ALL alignments you kill the flavor of the class.