Warlocks!

[Mahatu]

In terms of epic scaling for the eldritch blast, has it been considered to give it an extra d6 for every so many epic levels? You could grant them automatically if you have levels of the warlock class in the same way you do for melee and ranged power. Another is to have the blast improve the rate at which is scales with spell power based on the number of epic levels the character has. A third option is to give the eldritch blast a bonus to damage based on the warlock's Cha modifier.

I am not sure which one of these would be the best choice, or the rates of which for each (would likely need a fair amount of testing) but one of these, or a combination there of could help or solve the problem of scaling.

As a side note, do other arcane classes have spell scaling issues in epics? If not, what do you feel the difference is between the existing epic classes and the warlock's eldritch blast?

[edrein]

Yet another reason why I hate 3rd Ed.+!

Literally the only good thing to come out of that was DDO itself and even there there's a whole slew of 1st/2nd Ed. rules that would fit better!

The main reason why Druids are so weak in DDO is that Wolf Form Monk is so strong after all!
Take Lawful Neutral out of the equation and that Exploit type Build wouldn't even be possible!

Fran buddy... Monk isn't to blame. Ranger is the reason the exploit build works. Now monk may add some DPS benefits, but it doesn't allow you bypass feat restrictions. Also if this were entirely like 3.5e we'd have actual unarmed combat and feats outside of monk, so animal form druids could actually be pure-classed a less terrible, but alas. We keep looking to 4e and 5e like you want.

[Xoham]

Some still-early thoughts based on feedback (can't really promise anything, should probably wait until the work week starts and all other designers can chip in)

Thanks for continuing to read and reply! I only have strong opinions on three points.

• Spell points are probably here to stay in some form, but we're aware that having some spell-point free abilities is important.

I know I have already posted in this thread on the issue so I will keep my opinion very brief (even in hindsight, I did try!). Warlocks are proposed to be given spell points so they can better multi-class, and better work with epic destinies. I believe those are not good reasons to give Warlocks spell points in DDO because:

• it is inconsistent to give Warlocks spell points for better multi-classing and epic destinies and not give spell points to another class with magic-like abilities but no spell points, the monk;
• there are several methods of obtaining spell points outside of class levels including feats, items, and epic destinies;
• other classes without spell points (fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk) can still multi-class with spell-casting classes, and take epic destinies based on classes with spell points;
• these other classes may make better or worse multi-class spell-casters and spell-caster-based epic destiny users for reasons other than spell points, in particular:
  
  • a monk/sorcerer would make a better traditional sorcerer than a fighter/sorcerer, and a pure monk Draconic Incarnation (DI) would make a better traditional DI than a pure fighter DI because:
    
    • available monk enhancements grant additional spell power; and
    • available monk enhancements grant additional spell critical chance;
  • a Warlock/sorcerer would make a better traditional sorcerer than a fighter/sorcerer, and a pure Warlock DI would make a better traditional DI than a pure fighter DI for the same reasons as the monk example above, and in addition:
    
    • available Warlock feats will likely include spell focus feats, meta-magic feats, and possibly even spell critical chance increasing feats;
    • a Warlock would have a very high Charisma (casting statistic for a sorcerer and DI) in comparison to a fighter; and
    • a Warlock's equipment would very likely increase spell power, spell critical chance, and evocation DCs, while a fighter's equipment would likely contribute none of these, and would likely see both hands occupied with weapons or a shield;
• the epic destinies with spell points are those based on classes with spell points, if there was an epic destiny based on Warlocks, it could grant Eldritch Blast and other unlimited spell-point free invocations in the same way that Grandmaster of Flowers grants ki.

Instead I believe Warlocks could have unlimited use of (a smaller number of) invocations balanced by cool-downs only.

If my arguments above are not convincing, and spell points are the final decision, unlimited use of invocations could still be achieved by giving Warlocks a permanent equivalent of Spell Song Vigor. I feel strongly that unlimited invocations are the defining feature of the Warlock class.

• I'm a bit surprised at how often players have suggested that death spells aren't appropriate. Should we remove death spells from the general Warlock spell list?

Mostly, yes. I would stick to spells that are roughly equivalent to edition 3.5 Warlock invocations. I would consider a dark invocation (or whatever the highest invocation level will be) that is a single-target version of Mass Frog (effectively similar to the level 7 wizard and sorcerer spell Finger of Death). However, I would exclude all high level wizard and sorcerer spells, at least levels 8 and 9.

On what I think is the same issue, I also include the below representative quote without wanting to single out Silverleafeon in particular.

I respectfully object politely but strongly to the thought making a warlock give up Hellball, Mass Hold Monster and Wail. Perhaps Ruin might be a bit expensive for a Warlock but Mass Hold + Energy Burst ought to be an option imho. Any self Respecting Fiendish Warlock ought to be able to cast Hellball routinely as a show of respect for their patron.

I am quite confused by this. Casting level 9 wizard and sorcerer spells such as Mass Hold Monster and Wail of the Banshee requires 17 levels of wizard or 18 levels of sorcerer (or a tier 5 / level 20 spell singer bard), and is the most powerful ability wizards and sorcerers acquire. Removing them from a Warlock's invocation list is in no way 'giving up' these spells: they have never been there! Wanting a play style that consists of Wail of the Banshee and Mass Hold Monster + Energy Burst, seems to be wanting a Warlock with the same play style as a level 17 wizard or level 18 sorcerer. Why would this be wanted? Giving Warlocks these options as well as Eldritch Blast would make them very powerful compared to wizards and sorcerers, but even more importantly, would take away from the uniqueness of all three of these classes!

Wanting unlimited Hellball though (an epic spell of zero spell points balanced only by cool-down) is something I would support

• We of course still want to add new spells to the game, including particular for Warlock's release.

This is exciting!

[FranOhmsford]

Fran buddy... Monk isn't to blame. Ranger is the reason the exploit build works. Now monk may add some DPS benefits, but it doesn't allow you bypass feat restrictions. Also if this were entirely like 3.5e we'd have actual unarmed combat and feats outside of monk, so animal form druids could actually be pure-classed a less terrible, but alas. We keep looking to 4e and 5e like you want.

Excuse me?

I've stated again and again that I loathe everything WotC has done to my beloved D&D!

I've never even picked up a 5th Ed. Book or played a 4th Ed. session!

I have played 3.5 and hated every minute of it! {Pathfinder was better but only barely playable}.

And 3rd Ed. was and is an abomination!



And as for Druids - Animal Form in DDO {and possibly 3.5} is far far more relevant than in pre 3rd Ed. D&D where Druids were Casters who meleed with an actual weapon - Usually a Stave and only rarely went into form!

[FranOhmsford]

I wasn't referring to Blacksmiths when I called you out for using the term "fantasy film."

Ok...So what's not fantasy about A Knight's Tale then?

It may be set in the real world or a close approximation of it during the middle ages but that certainly isn't a valid reason to call something non-fantasy {King Arthur was also set in the real world as were Troy and Kingdom of Heaven!}.
It may not have magical beasts or items but again that's not a valid reason to call it non-fantasy either as plenty of fantasy is set in non-magical worlds!

I think the single most valid reason to place a play, movie, book etc. set on Earth in the past into the Fantasy Genre is two-fold:
1) Is it set in a time before competent firearms!
and
2) Despite being in the "Real-World" does it play fast and loose with real historical characters! {Basically it's not even trying to be historical fact!}.

A Knight's Tale passes BOTH of these tests!

[Uska]

Excuse me?

I've stated again and again that I loathe everything WotC has done to my beloved D&D!

I've never even picked up a 5th Ed. Book or played a 4th Ed. session!

I have played 3.5 and hated every minute of it! {Pathfinder was better but only barely playable}.

And 3rd Ed. was and is an abomination!



And as for Druids - Animal Form in DDO {and possibly 3.5} is far far more relevant than in pre 3rd Ed. D&D where Druids were Casters who meleed with an actual weapon - Usually a Stave and only rarely went into form!

Hey I like 1st Ed AD&D the best but 3.X isn't bad if you leave out absolutely all the splat books

[SisAmethyst]

Class Features

• Any alignment

No alignment restriction seems weird

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.

...
As noted in the original posts, we plan to disallow Good for Fiendish pacts (though there are some tech issues we need to solve that may be problematic).

I agree with others that the missing alignment is a bit weird, but as already noted Fiend should indeed be prohibited to take good alignment if possible. How about Fey (e.g. Dryad) need a form of Neutral?

Feat Progression

Level 2, Deceive Item (UMD+5) sounds a bit too OP for an easy splash, maybe make it +2 and add at level 5 an other +3?

Spellcasting
Somehow due to the SP this class seem too spell casting focused, and a new player would probably assume to blast through spells like a Sorc. Assuming Archmagi item, destinies and Sorc splashes that provide SP, we probably can even reduce the base SP pool down to 400 at level 20? If everybody cry we still can increase it afterwards but it is much more difficult to drop it. I mean the SP are more of support character much like a Paladin used SP for Zeal and Holy Sword spell, or the Ranger for Barkskin.

But in general I agree with the others that I would prefer those spells to be pure SLA and have no SP at all.

Warlock Spells

We are more or less trying to do that. Let us know more explicitly if you feel that Crowd Control or other spells that are in the spell list shouldn't be. It's not clear to me which spells you feel are reasonable or not.

If we stick to SP, maybe there should be a more limited list of spells or maybe bound to the alignment/pact (like some cleric spells, dunno if this is the goal)? While the death spells aren't wrong per se they tend to dominate here. A Warlock shouldn't play like a SP gimped Sorc. Spells should provide utility, tweaks and de/buffs. Something like where the bard is buffing the party, the Warlock debuff the enemy with Poison, Nauseated, Disease, Crushing Despair... unfortunately most of those debuffs (e.g. Contagion) aren't much used...

How about on the other hand maybe add a new spell 'Imitate Spellcasting' to get the ability to use any spell as a natural caster of same level (without UMD) for a very short time (seconds), using scrolls. So you could cast for example 'Heal' from a scroll like a Cleric but still need the SP for the spell and the scroll. After all with the UMD boost this class get, you probably could cast anything anyway, but this would provide a way to do it without investment in UMD.

If a new spell is possible, how about 'Maze', which traps a victim in a maze of suffering with an INT based check as save. Or 'spiderwalk' to give you bonus to reflex saves and make you immune to web.

[Uska]

From Phoenix AZ??? Where did you leave them the antarctic?



If they banned people for ripping the PC who have no idea whats going on in it; the general forum would shrink to half its size. It's hardly filled with elitists... in fact I'd say there weren't nearly enough of them in 2014 (there were none by my count)... I'm not one that's for **** sure, but I might have been the most critical of turbine that was in there. This year I see arguably 2 people who might reasonably be considered "elitist". And I bet at least one of them would object to the term.



Another post that is completely devoid of reasons or rhyme.... WHY do you think Warlock adds nothing?

If you can't come up with some reasons IMO the Dev's should just brush off your post and dismiss it out of hand

Sadly I know they are not dismissing posts like they maybe should be; because they seem to have paid attention to the give or take 3 people who randomly didn't like death spells in a freakin' Warlock spell selection (Yeah I mean I don't get that either what the hell?) and somehow 3 people was enough people for them to have seconds thoughts???... Personally I'd like to see Turbine change their methodology and demand at least some solid rationale for critisism or just brush it aside as a rule...

"it's sucks, do not want" should be summarily ignored. In fact they probably should put the posters of such posts literally in their ignore lists.

Actually closer to the great white north than I am Phoenix my home I took a temp job in Northen Maine

There is nothing really new in Warlock its all illusion the time spent on the class would have been better spent on finishing the other classes and bug fixes, I mean just look at the extended down time today plus the elusive lag problems.

And since I lost the fight to,prevent the class I have put forth my ideas on how they doing the class like having it cost spell points not good and looser alignment also not good but not as big as the spell point issue

[Uska]

Druid DOESN'T have it's proper PnP alignment restrictions!
Druids alignment restriction is TRUE NEUTRAL ONLY!

Paladins also don't have their proper PnP alignment restrictions as Lawful Good has long been superceded by following the alignment of the Paladin's Deity! {Lawful Good Paladins of Vulkoor or The Lord of Blades are a joke!}.

Silver Flame and Amaunator = Lawful Good
Sov Host = Nominally Lawful Good until Turbine actually separates them!
Vulkoor = Chaotic Neutral at best
Lord of Blades = Lawful Neutral as Lawful Evil isn't allowed!

You mixing editions on your alignment restrictions where Druids could only be TN Paladins could only be human and LG and even in 3.x core Paladins could only be LG and Druids had much more freedom

[FranOhmsford]

You mixing editions on your alignment restrictions where Druids could only be TN Paladins could only be human and LG and even in 3.x core Paladins could only be LG and Druids had much more freedom

In the basic Player's Handbook maybe.

But Paladins taking the alignment of their Deity {usually a Lawful Good deity would be chosen anyway} was an accepted house rule for many long before 3rd Ed. was even thought of!
Rules for Anti-Paladins were set out in Dragon Magazine on at least one occasion long prior to 3rd Ed.

Druids however were very specifically True Neutral despite what Deity they nominally worshipped {Their worship was more nature itself and the Nature deities had Clerics as well!}.
Druids were all about BALANCE i.e. True Neutral!

[Uska]

In the basic Player's Handbook maybe.

But Paladins taking the alignment of their Deity {usually a Lawful Good deity would be chosen anyway} was an accepted house rule for many long before 3rd Ed. was even thought of!
Rules for Anti-Paladins were set out in Dragon Magazine on at least one occasion long prior to 3rd Ed.

Druids however were very specifically True Neutral despite what Deity they nominally worshipped {Their worship was more nature itself and the Nature deities had Clerics as well!}.
Druids were all about BALANCE i.e. True Neutral!

Accepted by who? Not most players and certainly not by EGG nor most GM's at Origins or Gen Con

[songswrath]

Can we get a cube clean up on This thread?

it's got the typical derailments of X Edition is better & X class is broken fix it?

It's getting in the way of actual Warlock feedback.

+1

[Failedlegend]

How about Fey (e.g. Dryad) need a form of Neutral?

Yes Dryad is ONE type of fey and DRYADS tend to be neutral but there are Fey of EVERY alignment thus it makes sense if the devs feel it necessary to tie the pacts to alignments than Fey would be the any alignment one that and Dragon if we ever get it, celestial would of course be Any Good"

That said I don't think Locks should have any alignment restrictions at all there's PLENTY of lore in both the PnP books and various book series of Warlocks of every alignment making pacts with patrons of any alignment.

In fact the only thing that supports alignment restrictions is "Game Rule Information" which directly conflicts with what the Lore right before it says. (Specifically talking about 3.5 here)

Honestly though that doesn't even matter since the Devs are smart enough to realize shackling themselves to 3.5 would greatly limit DDO...this is Dungeons & Dragons Online...DnD...no mention of an edition...it is it's own edition with a Council of DMs that implement their own house rules.

Can we get a cube clean up on This thread?

it's got the typical derailments of X Edition is better & X class is broken fix it?

It's getting in the way of actual Warlock feedback.

Indeed, I'd have no problem if you clensed a few posts, just try to use "Edit" more than "Delete" I have several Lock related posts that have one or two small mentions about editions.

Have fun Cubey

[FranOhmsford]

Accepted by who? Not most players and certainly not by EGG nor most GM's at Origins or Gen Con

Well guess what... I never played D&D competitively!

Seriously! How did that ever become a thing in the first place?

By EGG I assume you mean E. Gary Gygax?
Well the man who created D&D back in the early 70s would be utterly appalled if he was able to travel forward in time and see what has become of that game!

[abull74]

Why not have some SLA's that apply curses.

Curse to take more dmg from force/fire/acid etc..

Just a thought..

In pen -n-paper, warlocks are known for their curses.

[Uska]

Well guess what... I never played D&D competitively!

Seriously! How did that ever become a thing in the first place?

By EGG I assume you mean E. Gary Gygax?
Well the man who created D&D back in the early 70s would be utterly appalled if he was able to travel forward in time and see what has become of that game!

Oh I agree he wouldn't care for it but he liked what they were doing with the new Hackmaster and I didn't play competively just lots,of pickup games with a large variety of gm's was fun playing with people from other areas

[Qhualor]

Why not have some SLA's that apply curses.

Curse to take more dmg from force/fire/acid etc..

Just a thought..

In pen -n-paper, warlocks are known for their curses.

During my light reading up on Warlocks, curses was listed as one of the things they are known for. Surprised not seeing this brought into DDO too. I will say though that curses would have to be potent to be worth it.

[FranOhmsford]

Oh I agree he wouldn't care for it but he liked what they were doing with the new Hackmaster and I didn't play competively just lots,of pickup games with a large variety of gm's was fun playing with people from other areas

In a convention situation where players may be swapping tables regularly it's probably best to go by the most well known rules if not totally by the book!

Conventions are hardly the place for House Rules anyway!

Hackmaster is completely different to 3.5 and tbh wasn't to my liking because it also was a long way from D&D - The older Gygax may have liked it but considering that at one point he was very angry with TSR over something to do with 1st Ed. it's unlikely his younger self would have been happy!

Still Gygax himself was not so particular about player character alignments considering what we know of what went on in his games! {I'd say that the alignment restrictions were made so unrelenting by others at TSR rather than he.}.

[SisAmethyst]

Don't get me wrong, but are we discussing Druids and Movies in this thread or feedback about Warlocks?

Since time is obviously an issue, and making new spells takes up time, here are some suggestions for abilities that could potentially be added to the Warlock spell list, and keep them from becoming a very poor version of a wizard or sorcerer. For some of these, renaming them would be a good idea, but that's not really an issue.

Interesting list.

If you look at the list at http://www.realmshelps.net/magic/warlock-inv.shtml you will notice that most are directly bound to the blast (like Eldritch Glaive, Hideous Blow) or don't translate into DDO anyway (e.g. Fell Flight, Devil's Sight) otherwise the Undersun Goggle would work in Rainbow or the reavers Fly spell would continue to persist, or don't work at all (e.g. Dark Foresight). Others like Charm do already exist so it's only a handful of spells that are needed and most of them neither need a fancy new graphic:

• Sudden Swarm: Use the effect of the Spinner, but have the spiders fight for you.
• Spiderwalk: Ignore the spider climb part but make it an alternate version of FoM.

I probably dismiss the amount of work a new spell/SLA impose (new icon, mechanic, inclusion/exclusions, saves) but of the list only ones would seem to need more effort, which is probably Chilling Tentacles and the graphical effect is more or less also existing in a dark/violet theme of the tentacles (Spinner spell?) and probably just need a white reskin and characters being entangled.

Shatter would be cool but I don't know how to translate that into DDO terms.

If you want to go more homebrew like http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Lightforce_...5e_Invocation) you could add the light coin of a medusa to immobilize creatures to the spell list.

Above all issues I have is this. Just. The simple fact you want to say cross-class melee builds. Did you ever play tabletop? Warlocks are a force to be reckoned with in melee combat without multiclassing. Hideous Blow (which is a melee form of Eldritch Blast) enabled this, then throw in shapes such as glaives, eldritch claws, etc. Warlocks don't need to splash to be effective melee combatants and if you gimp their melee tree so they have to splash it'll be stupid. Give them a capstone that promotes a PURE warlock who's a melee combatant. One that's comparable to whatever splash ideas you may think are worth it.

What I remember in PnP, they where a cool class from looks, prestige and flavor but in most campaigns due to the limited number of encounters usually outclassed by any Wizard or Sorc. But on long lasting fights and enduring dungeon crawls they could shine due to not being limited in their number of spell uses. Like a Fighter that can go as long as he has HP, but still a mage with Tensers would be more badass as a fighter then a warlock. They played more like an Arcane Archer or Eldritch Knight so I do understand the link to the Primal Sphere and agree for a melee capstone to make sense but they are still casters and would probably synergy somehow with the Eldritch Knight tree.

The later is probably what the devs and council members have in mind regarding multi classing and the reason for thinking about SP, but if a player is dipping in the wizard tree for EK, he also will get the SP from being wizard multiclass that can be boosted with items, stats, etc. so there wouldn't be any need for additional SP pool on the Warlock for the purpose of multiclassing that somehow contradict with them being unique compared to other casters.

[Uska]

In a convention situation where players may be swapping tables regularly it's probably best to go by the most well known rules if not totally by the book!

Conventions are hardly the place for House Rules anyway!

Hackmaster is completely different to 3.5 and tbh wasn't to my liking because it also was a long way from D&D - The older Gygax may have liked it but considering that at one point he was very angry with TSR over something to do with 1st Ed. it's unlikely his younger self would have been happy!

Still Gygax himself was not so particular about player character alignments considering what we know of what went on in his games! {I'd say that the alignment restrictions were made so unrelenting by others at TSR rather than he.}.

The long ago hackmaster was a joke and not what I am talking about and he was fun to play with at least in the one game I got to