Warlocks

[Mayhem]

Curious - can a Warlock use "True Strike" ?

[Joos]

Nope. If they had, that would mean they could more or less "Take 20" on every attack they do all day long. And even obsidian and WotC knew that would be a bad idea.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Probably not. But I think it'd be wise to have a backup plan if they start getting used the worst possible way.

thats players misusing it not the class

and the same goes for other classes i think

I worry that the difficulty with the warlock is that there are so few powers that not "misusing" them may end up nerfing them to uselessness. I'll have to see where it plays out in-game, but to my way of thinking, there are some clearly superior and clearly inferior invocations out there. At some level, look up most mid-level mages in ALFA and you can guess probably half of their spellbook or so. Now run a warlock who only has 5 powers total, while there's some variety in the mix, I don't think there will be too much.

The problem ends up being the warlock's philosophy of "I trade off versatility and flexibility for infinite use." Well, not like people are going to like being told they're trading versatility for infinite use, except when that use is really, really effective. Not a fun thing to try to legislate. At this point it's just a concern, haven't seen it play out.

But I dunno, I'd be really nonplussed if we saw this rise of 1st-3rd level warlock multiclasses eating up a couple of the permanent abilities, most notably See Invis (to counter the invis-at-will warlocks among other things), darkness infinite/day, +4 Dex/Tumble, and the +4 Hide/MS/20% miss v. ranged and to get Eldritch Blast for a "haha you can't totally disarm me" weapon. The warlock kind of goes away from 3.5e's general push to embed some of the really cool class abilities back at 2nd and 3rd level rather than having them up front at 1st like in 3.0e. And it's such an obscure, non-FR concept that to see it take that role will be very disheartening. But like I said, just worries at this point.

As for Hideous Blow, thanks Mik, that's a good help. I'm guessing it won't multiply on crit, but maybe it might - it's main use I think is for handling high-AC creatures where only your first attack is going to be useful anyway. Do the other abilities the manual says are permanent actually permanent (undispellable) or are they 1/day 24 hour-duration abilities or are they infinite/day abilities?

[witch]

hideous blow: = 1/round no critical chance

no added sneak attacks to any form of the eldritch blast melee or missile

tested it and all



i disagree on the non FR concept Almighty, but thats me.

[AlmightyTDawg]

The canon issue ends up being a weak argument anyway. I'm not inclined to look on WotC's permissiveness on NWN2 as any kind of nod, because of the audience they're aiming for. However, I'm well aware that with the stroke of a pen, bam warlocks start appearing.

It's no more wacky a concept than the Shadow Weave generally. The reason I don't like it personally is because I think it kicks the butt of Spellfire and Silver Fire, which are these obscenely rare and powerful gifts (which aren't nearly as powerful mechanistically as this eldritch nonsense). I also personally think it fundamentally violates Mystran dogma in an abstract sense, which emphasizes either the artistry of crafting permanent magic or the limitations of its common use.

I guess if I saw them fitting virtually anywhere in the FR universe, they'd have to be as off-color as spellfire users at the very least, and would probably represent some sort of plot/fight between proper Mystrans and these new renegades. Their implementation in general and munchkin value as a low-level multiclass make me tremble at where it could go. But I'm just the infernal advocate on this one.

[Mikayla]

ATD:

It's no more wacky a concept than the Shadow Weave generally. The reason I don't like it personally is because I think it kicks the butt of Spellfire and Silver Fire, which are these obscenely rare and powerful gifts (which aren't nearly as powerful mechanistically as this eldritch nonsense). I also personally think it fundamentally violates Mystran dogma in an abstract sense, which emphasizes either the artistry of crafting permanent magic or the limitations of its common use.

I now feel safe labeling you a "Magical Realist" in accord with Ayergo's "Label an ALFAn" thread in the off-topics. Its back to kindergarden for remedial make-believe classes for you!

[Mayhem]

Nope. If they had, that would mean they could more or less "Take 20" on every attack they do all day long. And even obsidian and WotC knew that would be a bad idea.

Even from a scroll?

Still, a rank of sorver would solve that.

"Truestrike hideous blow!"

[Joos]

I do not know if warlocks can use scrolls, but if they can, they fall under the spell description and not under the eldritch blast thus being a one use per scroll and not infinate use true strike which is OK in my book.

[Grand Fromage]

Allow warlocks, but automatically ban anyone who makes one. Problem solved.

[HEEGZ]

As PA I am not going to remove the Warlock from the list of available classes when we move to NWN2, assuming I am still PA at that time. If people abuse the Warlock's powers then we will deal with that on an individual basis, just like we deal with people who abuse other classes, such as taking a level of Sorceror or Wizard just to read scrolls, or a level of Ranger just to use two weapons, or whatever. The prevailing thought in ALFA is and hopefully shall remain that we give our fellow community the benefit of the doubt and we take each case individually. There are exceptions of course, our rule-book and charter are filled with rules that apply across the board, but on an issue like this, I prefer to trust my fellow ALFAns and punish only those who are shown to be abusers.

Naturally, this position can be overruled if a majority of Admin decide otherwise, or if there is a new PA who thinks differently than I. But for now, the above represents the position of the PA. Thank you.

With warlocks being permitted, are we allowing them to multiclass freely or will they face some sort of MC restriction as do monks/paladins? ATD has suggested something similar to a PrC format which may help avoid having way too many of them in proportion to other classes. I think I've warmed up to the idea of having them now and am interested to see if we simply put them in untouched or edit them somehow. Thoughts, suggestions?

- HEEGZ

[Fionn]

I cannot see requiring a psuedo-PrC once you take a level of Warlock, without requiring the same for Monk or Pali. As it stands, I can take a single level of Pali or Monk at any time, then go back to my main class. The only restriction is that I can't go back to monk/pali.

So far, the only thing I've seen that may be an issue is the +4 Dex (+2 mod). Added to an Elf Rogue, you can now start out with a 24 Dex. While this is certainly a benifit, I'm not sure it's worth being a level behind on your main class.

If we find that this actually is getting abused, as noted, we can alter this ability - either drop it to +2, delay it, or remove it for MC Warlocks.

[Cassiel]

Allow warlocks, but automatically ban anyone who makes one. Problem solved.

GF for Player Admin!

[Blackwill]

Now the main Warlock poll has been locked, I just wanted to point out people in Candlekeep are discussing the Warlock. So far there has been mention of a few warlocks in the realms, but very little has been done around them. Feel free to check out the discussion here.

[Joos]

I'm not going to say anything overt -- and nothing I haven't said already -- but for those who are interested in warlocks in a narrative/novel setting, I may have just the book for you . . . but you'll have to wait until March.

Cheers

[AlmightyTDawg]

I cannot see requiring a psuedo-PrC once you take a level of Warlock, without requiring the same for Monk or Pali. As it stands, I can take a single level of Pali or Monk at any time, then go back to my main class. The only restriction is that I can't go back to monk/pali.

Realistically, we can do what we want - the operative question being whether we want it. Monk and Pally have always been base classes historically, whereas Warlock was a moderately obscure expansion that happened to have a certain sort of appeal for OE. That said, given the RP behind them, man it certainly wouldn't hurt to make the multiclass quasi-PrCs, but I think the resistance is a bit strong on that just out of the base SRD.

So far, the only thing I've seen that may be an issue is the +4 Dex (+2 mod). Added to an Elf Rogue, you can now start out with a 24 Dex. While this is certainly a benifit, I'm not sure it's worth being a level behind on your main class.

Having finally gotten the game, my look at them is this. For a multiclasser, there's virtually no value to blast-alterers (shape, range, or effect) because it is just a 1d6 effect. In that sense, the blast is like an undisarmable weapon only to be whipped out in the most dire instances. The key ones are obviously Leaps and Bounds, with alternate appeal to Beguiling Influence (less useful in ALFA - see Charisma-skills Dead Horse), Dark One's Own Luck, See the Unseen, and Darkness.

Clearly none of those, considered as a "select an ability," comport with any other first level abilities in the game - the closest being ranger and monk first levels. Talk about "any two" and now we're a little closer, as pallys have the Divine Grace counter to DOOL, but clearly for just add-on abilities they become vastly superior. Coupled to Able Learner, what it does is adds the possibility of Use Magic Device, Spellcraft, Concentration, or Taunt as bonus skills - though it is possible that we'd cut into Able Learner as well to mitigate this issue.

As to Fionn's last point, I think the look was for a way to nibble at them in a way to dominantly affect the multiclass while conceding that for now it seems the single-class balance works out decently.