# Darkness+Devil's Sight is killing my campaign



## -=Xar=-

The Warlock's invocation Devil's sight allows him to see through all natural and magical darkness. He can take it at 1st level, and use it continuosly. Combine this with a Darkness spell (or better yet, Darkness invocation for unlimited use), some levels in fighter and you have a nice Sphere of Annihilation-look alike. Simply roll over the enemies with your Darkness spehere, and they will leave it in tiny bits. Enemies get disoriented within the sphere and attack an empty space, their allies, or simply suffer the 50% miss chance. They can only use area-attack spells. While the PC's merrily hack them into pieces or nuke them with spells and Eldritch Blasts from within their protection. Soon every PC takes a level in Warlock, and suddenly the party calls itself "The Blackballs".

It seems that there are but a few way to counter this cheesy tactic, like monsters with scent and blindsight. But I don't really want to center my campaign around girallons and dragons. Daylight and Dispel Magic would work, but there aren't always enemy spellcasters around, and even then they wouldn't prepare a lot Daylights. And when dispelled the party can simply put up another Darkness. 

Any other groups with the same problem? Is there any way to counter this abusive combo? Tactics the enemies could use to even things out, without relying to "every enemy spellcaster has now a daylight spell prepared" thing? Or should I simply disallow this?


----------



## Li Shenron

-=Xar=- said:
			
		

> Or should I simply disallow this?




I think it's easiest way. Or can you try NPC Warlocks with a Daylight invocation?


----------



## Shin Okada

First of all, Darkness spell (and other related spells) does not create complete darkness anymore. It creates dim (or shadowy) illumination and gives concealment, not the total concealment. So the miss-chance is only 20%. And opponents do not need to use listen check to pinpoint the location of him.

It seems to be a good combo. But many spellcasters can get the same miss-chance just by casting blur spell. And in this case, it does not bother his allies who don't have devil's sight. His rogue friend will also hate that warlock, as he cannot make a sneak attack within the area of darkness (unless he also has devil's sight). So darkness + devils sight is, while not bad, not that much a big deal.

Regarding counter tactics,

Creatures and characters will Blindfight feat will not have much trouble against him. Also, spellcasters have no trouble casting spells on him, unless the caster uses spells with attack rolls.

And, darkness is just a 2nd level spell and thus Daylight spell can dispel or counter it. Also, if the area of those two spells overlap, now natural lightsources dominate that area.

Anyway, if I were you, I will let him just do it (with 20% miss-chance, of course). He is a fighter type and spending 1 (or 2 if he takes both Devil's sight and Darkness) levels in non-combat class.


----------



## Li Shenron

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> First of all, Darkness spell (and other related spells) does not create complete darkness anymore.




Heh, I just recalled this from reading the other thread, and came back here to correct my post   

Incredibly, the 3.5 changes to Darkness DID have a good point... to balance the Warlock


----------



## Fieari

I just disallow warlocks, personally.  As I disallow many things from Complete Arcane.


----------



## RigaMortus

Funny thing is, my DM has house ruled the 3.5 version of Darkness so it works like the 3.0 version.  Knowing expressly well that 2 of us in the group are playing Warlocks...

Then again, this DM is known for his TPKs so I guess any help he can give us is good.  Which is why he also gives us automatic max hit points every level.  I mean really, the whole point of a class having a higher hit die is that they have more physical standing power than the lower hit die classes.  The random factor throws this out of wack, when a Wizard can roll lucky and get a 4 on hit hp roll and a Barbarian can get unlucky with his and roll a 1.  What sense does that make?

Sorry for the rant and tangent (rangent?).


----------



## Perun

*Thread hijack! :weeep::*



			
				RigaMortus said:
			
		

> I mean really, the whole point of a class having a higher hit die is that they have more physical standing power than the lower hit die classes.  The random factor throws this out of wack, when a Wizard can roll lucky and get a 4 on hit hp roll and a Barbarian can get unlucky with his and roll a 1.  What sense does that make?




As a quick thread hijack, when one of our group DMs, characters get to re-roll their hp, based on the HD. 

d4: no re-rolls
d6: re-roll if the result is 1
d8, d10: re-roll if the result is 1 or 2
d12: re-roll if the result is 1, 2, or 3

That way you get the random results of die-rolling, but you still have some assurance that your d12-HD barbarian will have more hps than other characters.


----------



## CapnZapp

Don't do that - you're making one character class better but not another.

Better then to let your players roll, but to have the average roll as a minimum result. (This is detailed in the DMG). 

Sure it creates stronger PCs, but at least all classes get the same treatment.

By the same token, letting everybody reroll "1"s is also a mistake - this time you favor the wizard much more than the barbarian. Unless everybody rolls a d12 for hit points and then looks up the result on the following table (I only include the Wizard's d4 here):

D12 --> D4
12 -> 4
11 -> 4
10 -> 4
9 -> 3
8 -> 3
7 -> 3
6 -> 2
5 -> 2
4 -> 2
3 -> 1
2 -> 1
1  re-roll!


----------



## Thanee

This darkness abuse isn't new, it was a much-used tactic in 3.0, using _Darkness_ or _Deeper Darkness_ and _Blindsight_. That was probably the primary reason for the change in 3.5, at least I suppose so.

There is even a spell that does both, create darkness and let's you see through it, at the same time... _Blacklight_.

But as Shin Okada said, you just do darkness wrong. Using it according to the rules solves your problem in a heart-beat.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## atom crash

I hate to perpetuate the thread-jack, but what I've found works well for rolling HP is whenever a player rolls for HP, I (the DM) also roll and the player takes the higher of the two rolls. In the case of both rolling a "1", I reroll. If it comes up a third "1", it stands because it was meant to be. Otherwise, they take that roll.

This method serves several purposes: Their HP doesn't hang on one roll, and they see me as being fair and helping them out. In the case of them rolling a low score and me rolling even lower, they also see that their roll could have been worse.


----------



## Li Shenron

Darkness and Blindsight? How many characters have Blindsight? Is there a 3.0 spell that I have overlooked?

To be honest, it's not even the combo that bugs me that much, but the fact that it can be done over and over by this warlock. I am sometimes ashamed by myself when my sorceress casts 2-3 times the same all-or-nothing spell until it works


----------



## Thanee

You mean like the _Blindsight_ spell (which in 3.0 still lasted 1h/lvl even  )?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## atom crash

Back toward the original topic, it does seem that the warlock's abilities are balanced in llight (pun) of how the 3.5 version of darkness works. However, I don't like how 3.5 darkness works. Why not use obscuring mist or a fog cloud? 

My current campaign started in 3.0 and has morphed into 3.5. However, because drow have figured in heavily since the beginning, and since I didn't want to retconn several significant encounters, I ruled that the 3.0 darkness stands.

I also haven't yet opened the warlock class to PCs.

When my current campaign ends, I'm going to have to seriously consider a) how to handle darness next time and b) whether or not to allow PC warlocks.


----------



## Thanee

atom crash said:
			
		

> I hate to perpetuate the thread-jack, but what I've found works well for rolling HP is whenever a player rolls for HP, I (the DM) also roll and the player takes the higher of the two rolls. In the case of both rolling a "1", I reroll. If it comes up a third "1", it stands because it was meant to be. Otherwise, they take that roll.
> 
> This method serves several purposes: Their HP doesn't hang on one roll, and they see me as being fair and helping them out. In the case of them rolling a low score and me rolling even lower, they also see that their roll could have been worse.




You could also try my method. Very simple and effective.

Any HD roll lower than half the HD is half the HD instead.

(Half the HD is 2 for d4, 3 for d6, 4 for d8, etc.)

Eliminates bad rolls completely (not just lowers the chance for them), which is the primary purpose, because having low hit points is simply annoying (especially for fighter types), but it does not make hit points much higher than they normally are either (and therefore does not mess with the CR/EL system much), and it puts a little more emphasis on the high hit dice classes (since higher hit dice gain more hit points that way on average... not much, just very little, the difference is 1 hp on average between d4 and d12).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## atom crash

> You could also try my method. Very simple and effective.
> 
> Any HD roll lower than half the HD is half the HD instead.
> 
> (Half the HD is 2 for d4, 3 for d6, 4 for d8, etc.).




I plan to try that method next time my group rolls up characters together. I saw it posted a while back in another thread and liked the idea. For the sake of consistency, though, I'm sticking with my method through the current campaign.


----------



## AuraSeer

atom crash said:
			
		

> My current campaign started in 3.0 and has morphed into 3.5. However, because drow have figured in heavily since the beginning, and since I didn't want to retconn several significant encounters, I ruled that the 3.0 darkness stands.



I met a DM who got around this by linking the revision to actual changes in the gameworld. His explanation involved a confrontation among several deities, the effects of which rippled over into the mortal world. The goddess of Shadow took a blow from the deity of Sun, so spells like _darkness_ can only dim light instead of entirely removing it. Among the deities of combat, the god who rules magical influence lost out to the god of nonmagical Strength, which explains why some combat buffs (like _haste_ and the stat boosts) are less effective.

There's no need for retroactive continuity, because the characters are aware that things have changed. I kind of like this idea, and I plan to use it whenever the next revision comes out.


----------



## Particle_Man

If you are using 3.0 darkness, then why not simply ban Devil's Sight rather than banning the entire Warlock class?


----------



## Pyrex

(continuing the thread-jack)

In my current game, as part of the campaign setup all the PC's are xxx/Ftr gestalt characters, so I have them roll the HD for both classes and take the better result (i.e., Rog/Ftr rolls a d6 and a d10 and takes whichever is better)


----------



## shilsen

Thanee said:
			
		

> You could also try my method. Very simple and effective.
> 
> Any HD roll lower than half the HD is half the HD instead.
> 
> (Half the HD is 2 for d4, 3 for d6, 4 for d8, etc.)




Who'da thunk? That's exactly what I use in my game, and it's worked great so far.


----------



## Thanee

Heh. I suppose that there are a few more that do so, tho the re-rolling is a lot more popular. It's not that spectacular, just simple and effective. 

And, of course, I wouldn't change something like this in the midst of a campaign either.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## reanjr

Is there no one who just enforces the HP rules?  I mean, yeah, low HP is a detriment and that's why players have the option to take average.  If you choose not to take average and you roll a 1, then why are you complaining?  I always take average at 2nd level and roll from then on.  Gives you a good start, but maintains the high average over a long career.


----------



## atom crash

The "drawback" of your method is that it really favors the PCs. Starting the PCs with a minimum score of half the die and letting them potentially roll higher means they can more easily overpower otherwise balanced encounters. Especially when the monsters by the book have the average roll per HD. 

I've already had to start giving monsters by the book +1 hp per die and NPCs (average roll) +1 hp per die (does that sentence make sense?) to balance the encounters. For example, 

The group in my campaign is 4 PCs + 1 cohort + 1 animal companion. One class ability + one feat have effectively thrown encounters balanced by the book out of whack.


----------



## -=Xar=-

Ah, thanks, I didn't knew Darkness was changed in 3.5, it explains a lot. Once I had a cleric PC who took a solo mission. He used Darkness and Blindsight, slaughtered the whole dungeon without even resting. It was ment for a group of 12th level PC's, he was 11th. Since then I am icky for combos like this.
As for HP's we use a variation on Thanee's: every level you get the average+0.5, so a rogue with Con 10 would get 4. It's like point buy, you know what you get. Never used rolling again, except for a single 2nd edition one-shot, for sentimental value.


----------



## Lasher Dragon

Nearly every DM I play with uses the method Thanee suggests, with 1 small difference - we always get at least top-half of die rolls, making a d4 minimum 3, a d6 4, a d8 5, etc.

Oh, and the DMs almost _always_ give the monsters max HP, among other little boosts and tweaks


----------



## Sir ThornCrest

*About the warlocks invocations..*

#1) in my campaign a big dark spot in the middle of the sky or field is an instant target for any spell caster with a fire ball, sonic boom whatever.

#2) Blindsight is worse than devils sight it allows him to see inviso in dark in clouds gases whatever its like radar! in a x radius so he cant be sneaked up on either, providing he sees anyways.

#3) The Warlocks ability to cast 2 3 4 or more invocations incessently makes him powerful for what he does, but thats just it he only does a few things..

Thorncrest






			
				-=Xar=- said:
			
		

> The Warlock's invocation Devil's sight allows him to see through all natural and magical darkness. He can take it at 1st level, and use it continuosly. Combine this with a Darkness spell (or better yet, Darkness invocation for unlimited use), some levels in fighter and you have a nice Sphere of Annihilation-look alike. Simply roll over the enemies with your Darkness spehere, and they will leave it in tiny bits. Enemies get disoriented within the sphere and attack an empty space, their allies, or simply suffer the 50% miss chance. They can only use area-attack spells. While the PC's merrily hack them into pieces or nuke them with spells and Eldritch Blasts from within their protection. Soon every PC takes a level in Warlock, and suddenly the party calls itself "The Blackballs".
> 
> It seems that there are but a few way to counter this cheesy tactic, like monsters with scent and blindsight. But I don't really want to center my campaign around girallons and dragons. Daylight and Dispel Magic would work, but there aren't always enemy spellcasters around, and even then they wouldn't prepare a lot Daylights. And when dispelled the party can simply put up another Darkness.
> 
> Any other groups with the same problem? Is there any way to counter this abusive combo? Tactics the enemies could use to even things out, without relying to "every enemy spellcaster has now a daylight spell prepared" thing? Or should I simply disallow this?


----------



## Sir ThornCrest

*cont hijack about hit pionts...*

We have always played no 1's period. And warriors cant roll less than their con bonus. This makes for a more stout warrior Palidons fighter barbarian and rangers and any other warrior type prestige class (usually any class with a +1 bab per level).

Thorncrest




			
				Perun said:
			
		

> As a quick thread hijack, when one of our group DMs, characters get to re-roll their hp, based on the HD.
> 
> d4: no re-rolls
> d6: re-roll if the result is 1
> d8, d10: re-roll if the result is 1 or 2
> d12: re-roll if the result is 1, 2, or 3
> 
> That way you get the random results of die-rolling, but you still have some assurance that your d12-HD barbarian will have more hps than other characters.


----------



## Joker

Xar is being melodramatic.  I only used the darkness/blindsight combo once in a quarter of said dungeon.  After I saw him have a lot of trouble with this tactic I decided not to ever use it again (despite being an effective tactic), because it is quite lame.
This topic came up again because I wanted to hire a group of warlock/fighters known to use this tactic.  But seeing the large vein on Xar's forehead throbbing I decided not to .

P.S.  We still largely use 3.0.


----------



## Thanee

atom crash said:
			
		

> The "drawback" of your method is that it really favors the PCs.




Mine? You mean compared to rolling twice and taking the highest roll?

Then let me tell you, that what I proposed always gives a lower average result than that method. It even is lower than the quite popular re-roll once (but you have to take the second roll if you decide to use the re-roll).

@reanjr: I can tell you why I do not like it... because rolling a 1 or 2 on a d10 three times in a row is no fun. Yeah, you can take the average, but if you do not and roll a 1 once, what do you do then? Take the average from then on and suck it up, or hope for a high roll to even it out? Exactly! And then you roll another 1. And then a 2. And then you are left with a fighter that has to hide behind the wizard.  And that is no fun.  What I have written above completely eliminates this chance without giving a high increase to the average (it's between +0.25 and +1.25 hps/lvl depending on HD size (yes, it is an increase, even worth as much as a feat for a barbarian or fighter, but it's not such a big difference in the end other than removing all those characters from the pool that are simply no fun to play since they fall over dead as soon as someone touches them - you don't need super high hp, but you need at least roughly average hps, and rolling is more fun than just taking the average, too)). That's why I like it best that way. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## atom crash

> Mine? You mean compared to rolling twice and taking the highest roll?
> 
> Then let me tell you, that what I proposed always gives a lower average result than that method. It even is lower than the quite popular re-roll once (but you have to take the second roll if you decide to use the re-roll).




I made the statement based on the fact that your method results in a higher minimum score than my method. Though I'll admit I don't dabble enough in statistics to give the two methods a thorough comparison; I was just eyeballing it. 

Example #1: The human sorceror IMC gets another level. By my method, he gets hp in the range of 2-4. By your method, he gets hp in the range of 2-4. Same result at the low end of hp. But he can still conceivably end up with a 1 by my method; not likely, but possible.

Example #2: The dwarven fighter IMC gets another level. By my method, he gets hp in a range of 2-10, average is about a 6 (?). By your method, that range is 5-10, average of about 7 (?). Now that I think about it, I haven't taken into account the fact that rolling a 1,2,3,4 or 5 results in a score of 5. How does that affect the average?

And, of course, favoring the PCs is not a bad thing, as they will engage in many more combat encounters than the NPc or monster. That's why I put quotation marks on "drawback."

But I honestly don't understand how your method results in a lower average. A little help with the math?


----------



## ForceUser

Thanee said:
			
		

> You could also try my method. Very simple and effective.
> 
> Any HD roll lower than half the HD is half the HD instead.
> 
> (Half the HD is 2 for d4, 3 for d6, 4 for d8, etc.)
> 
> Eliminates bad rolls completely (not just lowers the chance for them), which is the primary purpose, because having low hit points is simply annoying (especially for fighter types), but it does not make hit points much higher than they normally are either (and therefore does not mess with the CR/EL system much), and it puts a little more emphasis on the high hit dice classes (since higher hit dice gain more hit points that way on average... not much, just very little, the difference is 1 hp on average between d4 and d12).
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



We don't roll hit points anymore, because too often the barbarians among us roll 1s and 2s for their hit dice. Instead I give them a flat amount of hit points each level at the high side of average, modified by Con bonus and feats. Works for us.

d4 = 3
d6 = 4
d8 = 5
d10 = 6
d12 = 7


----------



## Krafen

ForceUser said:
			
		

> We don't roll hit points anymore, because too often the barbarians among us roll 1s and 2s for their hit dice. Instead I give them a flat amount of hit points each level at the high side of average, modified by Con bonus and feats. Works for us.
> 
> d4 = 3
> d6 = 4
> d8 = 5
> d10 = 6
> d12 = 7




My group has been using flat HP for years now. We use 75%, rounded down. It has worked well. 

d4:3
d6:4
d8:6
d10:7
d12:9


----------



## Thanee

atom crash said:
			
		

> But I honestly don't understand how your method results in a lower average. A little help with the math?




Ok, a little comparison should make that clear, I hope. 

We use the standard re-rolling method. You can re-roll once, but have to keep the new roll.

It's obvious, that your method, where you take the highest from the two rolls is better than that, because either the second roll is equal or higher, then the result will be the same, or the first roll was higher, then your method yields the better result. It's always equal or better, there is no way you can come out worse.

But we'll stick to the weaker version, since it's easier to compare.

When you roll the HD you can expect to gain the average of the die roll. It can be lower or higher, but on average it is exactly the average. On a d8, this is 4.5, for example.

So, if we can re-roll once, we'll always choose to re-roll, if we rolled lower than 4.5, because then we can expect to gain more hp (of course, you _could_ get higher even on a 6 or 7, but usually you won't).

So, if we roll a 1, 2, 3, or 4 we'll re-roll, otherwise the result stands.

With the re-roll we replace our result (1, 2, 3, or 4) with 4.5, basically, which is the average of the second roll, so on average, every roll below 5 becomes 4.5.

With my method, every such roll becomes 4, which is .5 lower.

Therefore the re-roll once method is always equal or better than the half HD minimum method.
The take highest from two rolls is always equal or better than the re-roll once method, so obviously also as the half HD minimum method.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## atom crash

Ok, I see your point. Thanks for the illustration.

But .... if the average roll is a 4.5, the game rules require that it be rounded down. I understand that if I roll 4.5 twice, then I get a 9. Except that each 4.5 is rounded down to 4 before it is added, and I end up with 8. So in that regard, the two methods are very similar.

Your example shows the re-roll method is, in theory, plainly more advantageous. But I still think, in practice, that using a minimum roll of half the die is better for the players. Why? There is no chance whatsoever for getting a roll of less than half the die. 

But your argument was that the average is always lower. And I'm focused on the difference between the methods in the low end of the range. I get it now. That's enough math for one day.   

However, when all is said and done, I think that either method is going to yield similar results. There will be differences, of course, but minor ones.


----------



## Thanee

atom crash said:
			
		

> But .... if the average roll is a 4.5, the game rules require that it be rounded down.




No, that is not relevant. You cannot *roll* a 4.5, you will never have that result, but on average the result is always 4.5, it's a purely theoretical value, but extremely important in adjudicating this kind of stuff.



> Your example shows the re-roll method is, in theory, plainly more advantageous.




On average. 



> But I still think, in practice, that using a minimum roll of half the die is better for the players. Why? There is no chance whatsoever for getting a roll of less than half the die.




Exactly, which is precisely why I think it's so much better. It does the same, roughly, but more effective. Both methods are meant to lessen the chances of a really low roll.

With the fixed number, the chance for a low roll is non-existant, which is superior to the higher spread of the various re-roll methods.

In addition, it also results in a lower average, therefore the result is closer to the original method, where you just roll once and keep the result.

These are two advantages over the re-rolling methods IMHO. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Li Shenron

Thanee said:
			
		

> You mean like the _Blindsight_ spell (which in 3.0 still lasted 1h/lvl even  )?




I see, must be noncore at least, since it never came up in any of our characters.


----------



## KarinsDad

-=Xar=- said:
			
		

> Any other groups with the same problem? Is there any way to counter this abusive combo? Tactics the enemies could use to even things out, without relying to "every enemy spellcaster has now a daylight spell prepared" thing? Or should I simply disallow this?




We have a similar, but slightly different problem.

Virtually every encounter, our enemies get to "ambush us", even when we attempt to ambush them.

No matter how we approach an encounter, it ends up that NPCs archers are shooting from the dark or from concealment at us and we then become flatfooted in the middle of the battle. Arrrggghhhh.

The other aspect of this is that WotC has a BAD rule about initiative versus surprise. So, even though we KNOW the enemy is ahead of us, if we do not spot all of the enemy before battle starts, then some of them can get an attack during the surprise round and again if their initiatives beat ours (us being flatfooted the entire time).

This is all according to the rules, but it really sucks, especially at lower level, to get hit by two arrows in the surprise round and another one in round one before your initiative even comes up. Or, if a couple of opponents fire from concealment and we become flatfooted against them in round five. We are basically toast against underground races in a "dungeon setting" (our last dungeon setting was a silver mine where we had an extremely difficult time defeating small groups of kobolds since we needed light and they didn't).

The new motto of our group has become the sarcastic "Fine time to take a nap" (alla Three Stooges).


As a DM, you can use the "fire from the dark / concealment" flatfooted tactic against the PCs to at least wound them before they get the Darkness / Devil's Sight tactic working. Plus, the NPCs shouldn't have too much of a problem against 3.5 Darkness since they should rarely attack their own allies and also, it is only a 20% miss chance in there.




			
				Joker said:
			
		

> Xar is being melodramatic.  I only used the darkness/blindsight combo once in a quarter of said dungeon.  After I saw him have a lot of trouble with this tactic I decided not to ever use it again (despite being an effective tactic), because it is quite lame.
> This topic came up again because I wanted to hire a group of warlock/fighters known to use this tactic.  But seeing the large vein on Xar's forehead throbbing I decided not to .




It is unfortunate that you got caught up in WotC's experiment with the unbalanced Warlock class. You have to power down your PC in order to not irritate your DM. That sucks. :\ 

In our campaign, I play a psion. I rarely use my powers (relying on a crossbow and a greatsword most of the time), but if an encounter is going against us, I pull out my psionic guns and lay waste to the field. I have single handedly turned the tide of battle from losing to winning (or at least drawing in one case) every single time we have gotten into a losing situation (and none of the other 5 PCs have done this even once, course, we do not have an arcane spell caster). The problem is that I am pretty much low on power or out of power once I do that.

I could not imagine the fits I would cause my DM if I had a Warlock doing that.


On the subject of dice, comparison of averages of normal method, average minimum method, and re-roll method:

D4 2.5 2.75 3.25
D6 3.5 4.00 4.47
D8 4.5 5.25 5.81
D10 5.5 6.50 7.15
D12 6.5 7.75 8.49


On the further  subject of Warlocks, I'd just as soon get rid of them. WotC introduced a power curve of power vs. versatility vs. reusability vs. abilities per day that started ballooning like:

P10: V10: R5: A10 Wizard 
P11: V9: R5: A11 Specialized Wizard
P13: V7: R15: A13 Sorcerer
P15: V5: R20: A10 Psion
P18: V2: R20: A100 Warlock

Sure, a Psion can do a D6 per level and a Warlock can only do just over 1/2 D6 per level, but the Psion can only do that maybe 5 times per day at max power and a Warlock can do it all day at max power.

Combine that with the Warlocks other pretty cool abilities and you have a very good NPC villain class, but a very broken PC class.


----------



## Thanee

If we start our next campaign eventually, we'll have a Warlock for sure, since one guy would like to try it.

So far, I don't think it will be unbalancing, I believe that the unlimited lower power abilities is less powerful than limited high power ones in general. Pretty much the same as if you look at the fighter compared to a sorcerer or wizard.

At low levels, I fully expect the Warlock to be immensely powerful, but at higher levels, that power will probably fade compared to the spellcasters.



> The other aspect of this is that WotC has a BAD rule about initiative versus surprise. So, even though we KNOW the enemy is ahead of us, if we do not spot all of the enemy before battle starts, then some of them can get an attack during the surprise round and again if their initiatives beat ours (us being flatfooted the entire time).




But the enemies have to spot you, too, or not?
And if you already know they are there, you have the better means to avoid that, methinks.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. @Li Shenron: Yeah, it's from FR. New version is one spell level lower but only 1 min./level now, which is far better balanced.


----------



## KarinsDad

Thanee said:
			
		

> At low levels, I fully expect the Warlock to be immensely powerful, but at higher levels, that power will probably fade compared to the spellcasters.




Perhaps. But assuming a party of 4 15th level  NPCs versus a party of 4 15th level PCs where one of them is a Warlock, not even using any of his other powers, a Warlock could easily take out virtually any single arcane caster NPC on the other side in 2 rounds (in round one if he gets surprise and his initiative roll is higher than his target).

15th level NPC Sorcerer with average 53 hit points (Con 12) gets hit twice for 28 points on average from the 15th level PC Warlock and is unconscious (assuming the Warlock did not critical the first attack and take him out with 16D6 in a single blow). Ranged touch attacks are pretty darn easy at high level.

Average damage-wise, one Warlock is like having two Archer type fighters on your side. Sure, he might not be able to throw Fireballs and seriously injure multiple opponents in a single attack like the arcane casters, but one on one he is awesome.

If the opposing group has spell casters, I'd prefer to have a Warlock on my team. If the opposing group does not have spell casters, I'd prefer to have an arcane spell caster on my team.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> But the enemies have to spot you, too, or not?
> And if you already know they are there, you have the better means to avoid that, methinks.




You would think, but you'd be surprised what can happen "according to the initiative rules".


----------



## Laman Stahros

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> We have a similar, but slightly different problem.
> 
> Virtually every encounter, our enemies get to "ambush us", even when we attempt to ambush them.
> 
> No matter how we approach an encounter, it ends up that NPCs archers are shooting from the dark or from concealment at us and we then become flatfooted in the middle of the battle. Arrrggghhhh.
> 
> The other aspect of this is that WotC has a BAD rule about initiative versus surprise. So, even though we KNOW the enemy is ahead of us, if we do not spot all of the enemy before battle starts, then some of them can get an attack during the surprise round and again if their initiatives beat ours (us being flatfooted the entire time).
> 
> This is all according to the rules, but it really sucks, especially at lower level, to get hit by two arrows in the surprise round and another one in round one before your initiative even comes up. Or, if a couple of opponents fire from concealment and we become flatfooted against them in round five. We are basically toast against underground races in a "dungeon setting" (our last dungeon setting was a silver mine where we had an extremely difficult time defeating small groups of kobolds since we needed light and they didn't).
> 
> The new motto of our group has become the sarcastic "Fine time to take a nap" (alla Three Stooges).




FYI, what you are talking about here is not "all according to the rules". You cannot become flatfooted in the middle of combat. Flatfooted only exists at the beginning of combat (as per the DMG).



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Flat-Footed*:A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, not yet reacting normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.




Yes, surprise rounds suck, but, they don't happen in the middle of combat.


----------



## atom crash

> Average damage-wise, one Warlock is like having two Archer type fighters on your side. Sure, he might not be able to throw Fireballs and seriously injure multiple opponents in a single attack like the arcane casters, but one on one he is awesome.




At 15th level (the party level in your example), the warlock is getting off 1 eldritch blast or invocation while each fighter is getting off three arrows, assuming they aren't using rapid shot. The warlock could arguably quicken one eldritch blast and thus get off two per round (what's the minimum level he can take quicken SLA?), but how does that damage output compare to 2 archers launching 6-8 arrows per round? Or 6-8 flaming/shocking/whatever arrows per round?

Granted, in your example the warlock beats the sorceror into unconciousness before the sorc acts in round 1, but how often is that going to happen?

I'm not so sure the warlock is as unbalanced as you might think.

My initial reaction was, "Wow, that class is really overpowered." Then I read some discussion on their powers and have rethought that initial response. But I still haven't decided; I need to do some more looking into the balance issues.


----------



## KarinsDad

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> FYI, what you are talking about here is not "all according to the rules". You cannot become flatfooted in the middle of combat. Flatfooted only exists at the beginning of combat (as per the DMG).




Sorry, my terminology error due to our DM asking us for our flatfooted AC in the middle of combat.

If you cannot see your opponent and he fires a missile weapon at you, you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC. This is basically the same as being flatfooted (with the exception that you can still make Attacks of Opportunity in the middle of combat when denied your Dexterity bonus to AC as opposed to really being flatfooted at the beginning of combat and you cannot even make AoOs).

Additionally, not only do you lose your Dexterity bonus, the archer is at +2 to hit you. So, your effective AC is 2 worse than it would be against an opponent whom you can see, but whom you are flatfooted against in the beginning of the combat.

The point I was trying to make is that your effective AC can be worse than normal flatfooted if archers you cannot see (or you do not see right away) attack you in the middle of combat.



			
				Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> Yes, surprise rounds suck, but, they don't happen in the middle of combat.




I didn't say that surprise rounds happen in the middle of combat. I incorrectly said that we became flatfooted in the middle of combat if we could not see our attacker.

What I meant by that is that we lose our Dexterity bonus to AC and our attacker is at +2 to hit as well. For all intents and purposes, it's the same as being ambushed in the middle of combat.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

KarinsDad -

Did you then immediately see those archers?  Or did they magically fade back into cover?

Was the DM using the Sniping rules?  If so, it's practically impossible for any low-level archer to Snipe a similar-level character who has even a moderate Wis bonus or Spot roll.


----------



## KarinsDad

atom crash said:
			
		

> At 15th level (the party level in your example), the warlock is getting off 1 eldritch blast or invocation while each fighter is getting off three arrows, assuming they aren't using rapid shot. The warlock could arguably quicken one eldritch blast and thus get off two per round (what's the minimum level he can take quicken SLA?), but how does that damage output compare to 2 archers launching 6-8 arrows per round? Or 6-8 flaming/shocking/whatever arrows per round?




The fighters have maybe a 50% chance to hit with their best arrows. Assuming say 15 points of damage per arrow (D8 + 3 mighty + D6 flaming +3 magic +1 point blank), that is 50% + 25% + 5% chance to hit times 15 points per arrow = 12 points of damage per archer per round or 24 points of damage (increased to 26 points for criticals on average). The Warlock is hitting for 28 points of damage 95% of the time (maybe +16 to hit versus touch ACs often 15 or lower) or 26+ points of damage (increased to 29 points for criticals on average).

The fighters would have to have a 60% chance to hit to beat the average damage and this assumes that the Warlock doesn’t have other invocations or magic working in his favor.

A 60% hit chance at level 15 means that the archers are at +24 and their opponents ACs are only 33. 33 is not that high of a normal AC for level 15. Chances are that the archers have less than a 60% chance to hit on their best shots.

And we are still talking TWO Archers here for one Warlock.

And with Rapid Shot, these odds are virtually identical (40% + 40% chance to hit times 15 points per arrow = 12 points of damage per archer per round or 24 points of damage (increased to 26 points for criticals on average)).



			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> Granted, in your example the warlock beats the sorceror into unconciousness before the sorc acts in round 1, but how often is that going to happen?




Maybe one combat in five or six.

If the Warlock increases the threat range of his EB (and what Warlock will not do this by 15th level), that's basically a 10% chance at double damage on round one alone. The other aspect of this is that the PC Warlock is going to pick on the guy in no armor (possibly casting spells), but the NPC Sorcerer might not be concentrating on a guy in armor on the other side.

I am not saying that the Warlock will always beat the Sorcerer in round one, but assuming he can beat the Sorcerer's Initiative 50% of the time, the Sorcerer is over half damaged before he can even act in round one half of the time.



			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure the warlock is as unbalanced as you might think.




I'm not so sure either, but it looks that way on the surface.



			
				atom crash said:
			
		

> My initial reaction was, "Wow, that class is really overpowered." Then I read some discussion on their powers and have rethought that initial response. But I still haven't decided; I need to do some more looking into the balance issues.




I haven't carefully looked at him, but what I did see so far SHOUTS imbalance.


----------



## ragboy

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> KarinsDad -
> 
> Did you then immediately see those archers? Or did they magically fade back into cover?
> 
> Was the DM using the Sniping rules? If so, it's practically impossible for any low-level archer to Snipe a similar-level character who has even a moderate Wis bonus or Spot roll.




Must be a strict interpretation of this line from Attack Modifiers: 

Attacker Is...   Melee Ranged
Invisible           +2*      +2*

* _The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC. This bonus doesn’t apply if the target is blinded._

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/combatModifiers.html

Does a concealed attacker = an invisible attacker? Not sure if I've ever had to make that distinction before...


----------



## KarinsDad

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> KarinsDad -
> 
> Did you then immediately see those archers?  Or did they magically fade back into cover?
> 
> Was the DM using the Sniping rules?  If so, it's practically impossible for any low-level archer to Snipe a similar-level character who has even a moderate Wis bonus or Spot roll.




You mean the kobolds with the 60 foot darkvision (that they didn't need because we had torch and lamp light) that were shooting at us in the large underground mines? No, I did not immediately see those archers.  

Nor did I immediately see the Rogue archers firing at us from the dark sewer spillage tunnel while we fought their allies on the beach.  


Sure, if it is only concealment, they tend to only get one "ambush" shot at you. But even then, they can move back further into concealment and come back at you from another angle (requiring another Spot roll).


----------



## Thanee

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Perhaps. But assuming a party of 4 15th level  NPCs versus a party of 4 15th level PCs where one of them is a Warlock, not even using any of his other powers, a Warlock could easily take out virtually any single arcane caster NPC on the other side in 2 rounds (in round one if he gets surprise and his initiative roll is higher than his target).




I think you quite heavily underestimate the power of a 15th level arcane spellcaster there. 



> You would think, but you'd be surprised what can happen "according to the initiative rules".




Do you mean, that your DM is not fair with those rules?
Otherwise I really have no idea what you mean. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The fighters have maybe a 50% chance to hit with their best arrows.




Wow, you must play a different edition than I do... fighters hit only 50% with their *best* attack in your games? 

15th level sorcerers have only about 50 hit points!?

Did they never hear of Con bonuses (from spells or items) and temporary hit points (_empowered False Life_)?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad

ragboy said:
			
		

> Must be a strict interpretation of this line from Attack Modifiers:
> 
> Attacker Is...   Melee Ranged
> Invisible           +2*      +2*
> 
> * _The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC. This bonus doesn’t apply if the target is blinded._
> 
> http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/combatModifiers.html
> 
> Does a concealed attacker = an invisible attacker? Not sure if I've ever had to make that distinction before...




There really is no difference between total concealment and invisibility for an attacker.

"Invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)."

Nothing states that invisible means that you must be under the influence of a spell or power.

A character in the dark is "Visually undetectable". A character in total concealment is "Visually undetectable".


Even without total concealment, you won't necessarily see an opponent until you make a Spot roll (or he shoots you or something) and if you cannot see your opponent, you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC (minimally).

For example from the SRD:

"A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."

"Blinded: The character cannot see. He takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)"

"In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC"


Since the attack modifier rules for blindness and invisibilty are effectively the same (one is +2 to hit and the other is -2 to AC), it seems that if you do not see an attacker, it's tough to react. Granted, a DM could rule that you see the arrow for the split second that it comes into the light (and hence he does not get the +2 to hit), but if he would rule that for a character you cannot see in the darkness, why would he rule that way for an invisible character that is standing in bright light and firing an arrow at you?

In any case, this is how our DM is running it. It appears to be what was intended.


----------



## Quidam

*Sniping*



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Was the DM using the Sniping rules?  If so, it's practically impossible for any low-level archer to Snipe a similar-level character who has even a moderate Wis bonus or Spot roll.




I recall reading the Sniping rules in the PHB but can't seem to dig them up in the SRD.  Would someone do me the kindness of either linking me to them or quoting them?

IIRC, when sniped against, the defender get's a +20 bonus to the Spot check.  Yet if the attacker has total concealment, they get a bonus to their Hide checks:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Hide checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Hide checks when not moving (even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual clues).




While the SRD says "invisible", I would equate that with "has total concealment".  So if they Snipe you and don't move, the bonus to their Hide check should more than balance the bonus to the defender's Spot check that's the result of being Sniped.


----------



## Quidam

*Found the Reference*



			
				Quidam said:
			
		

> I recall reading the Sniping rules in the PHB but can't seem to dig them up in the SRD.  Would someone do me the kindness of either linking me to them or quoting them?




I found the reference- it's under the Hide skill description.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Sniping: If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a –20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.


----------



## KarinsDad

Thanee said:
			
		

> Wow, you must play a different edition than I do... fighters hit only 50% with their *best* attack in your games?




Note: I had an error above. Warlocks at 15th level do 7D6, not 8D6 (I didn't have the book with me and was extrapolating low level damage).

Ok, using the sample 15th level Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin NPCs out of the DMG:

Fighter +23 to hit, D10+9 damage (assuming his ranged attacks would be as good as his melee numbers here if he wanted to be an Archer)

Ranger+24 to hit, D8+6 damage

Paladin +21 to hit, D8+5 damage

So far, all of these guys hit for less average damage than my earlier example. Let’s look at 15th level NPC ACs in the DMG:

Bard: 19
Cleric: 24
Druid: 23
Fighter: 28
Monk: 25
Paladin: 26
Ranger: 23
Rogue: 22
Sorcerer: 19
Wizard: 20

Now these surprised me since the PCs in my last campaign at 8th to 10th level were often in the high 20s to low 30s and I would expect NPCs to be just as anal on survival as PCs (hence, low 30s by 15th level). Also, there are more defensive magical items (and ways to increase AC) in the game then there are offensive ones.

Even so, using these numbers puts the Fighter at anywhere from 26 points of damage to 41 points of damage on average. Better than the Warlock’s 25 points against most NPCs.

But then again, I think these ACs are pretty darn low compared to what we saw in our mid-level games, probably because they do not include any protective spells.

Looking in the Monster Manual for CR 15 encounters and their AC / chance to hit with best attack / average damage full round attack this fighter above would do to them:

Marut, 34 / 50% / 13
Vampire Half Elf Mnk 9/Shd 4, 32 / 60% / 17

Which is more in the ballpark of what I was thinking compared to 25 points by the Warlock against the Marut and 19 points against the Vampire Monk.

Note: the Vampire Monk here has a touch AC of 23 (which is extremely high for most encounters, NPCs or monsters), so the Warlock would hit him less often (at +16, an average of 19, still more than the Fighter).


And, of course, this does NOT include any modification to the EB due to Eldritch Essence Invocations.


So yeah, not quite as bad as I thought, but still potent. The Warlock never runs out of arrows.   



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> 15th level sorcerers have only about 50 hit points!?
> 
> Did they never hear of Con bonuses (from spells or items) and temporary hit points (_empowered False Life_)?




The 15th level NPC Sorcerer and Wizard in the DMG have 54 hit points each.

I do not doubt that enemy spellcasters can have up protection spells, but if they do, it will also protect against the Archers as well as the Warlocks (i.e. Dex buff items in addition to Con buff items, etc.).


----------



## Thanee

IIRC Warlock's do not have _False Life_. Sorcerers and Wizards do. At 15th level, that's over 20 extra hit points on average with a duration that it's reasonable to assume, it's _always_ active (until used up in case of the Wizard, the Sorcerer will simply renew it everytime after combat).

I basically meant, that you cannot just take the fiftysomething hit points there as the total you need to remove. That's not what will happen in a 15th level encounter.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hypersmurf

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> FYI, what you are talking about here is not "all according to the rules". You cannot become flatfooted in the middle of combat. Flatfooted only exists at the beginning of combat (as per the DMG).




Generally but not absolutely true.

See the Balance skill in the PHB, or the Flick of the Wrist feat in Complete Warrior for examples.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Ugh ... The reason your comparison is off is that the NPCs from the DMG are very underequipped for their levels.


----------



## Cyberzombie

The number of critters in the MM alone that have Scent, Tremorsense, or other "uber" senses that negate darkness is very large.  And many of them are common monsters, too.

I have players reroll anything under half hp until they get half or more.  Next campaign I'm going to give out flat hp numbers.  I'm finding the random generation to be more and more of a sacred cow that needs slaying.


----------



## Storyteller01

Word gets around when people start using a particular tactic. Have you tried setting an ambush with spiked pit traps or 'ankle braeakers'? Maybe use some area of effect gear (alchemist fire or homebrewed grenades). Alchemy can also make a mundane version of stinking cloud (stink pot ahoy!!). Have archers waiting outside the cloud to pick them off as the come out. Doesn't even have to be specifically for them: goblins could use these methods to improve raids.


If you are interested in OGL sources, there is a book that provides an interesting feat. You lob arrows into an area, putting one arrow in a 5 foot square.  I don't remember the exact progression, just the max coverage (an arrow in every square in a 20' x 20' area). It's especially vicious if the main BBEG uses little 'opponents' as bait to draw out your players. Why would he care if the bait took a hit?


----------



## KarinsDad

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Ugh ... The reason your comparison is off is that the NPCs from the DMG are very underequipped for their levels.




I agree. They seem to have the offensive items, but not the defensive ones.

I also think that PCs (and hence NPCs) go out of their way to acquire AC boost items, just so that they will not get hit at 15th level 95% of the time by 15th level Fighters once they get that high of level. AC is the #1 defense against a lot of bad things beyond hit points (like touch ability drain, poison, disease, etc.).


----------



## Nail

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Looking in the Monster Manual for CR 15 encounters and their AC / chance to hit with best attack / average damage full round attack this fighter above would do to them:.....




Problems here!

As you know, there are only 2 examples of CR 15s in the MM.  Extrapolating that to *all* CR 15 creatures would be.......in error.    Fro example, trying looking at the CR 15 creatures in other WotC products.  Or, if you think these are all out of whack, look at the trend in the data just within the MM, starting at CR 10 and working up to CR 20.  In any case, you'll see that the two CR 15 examples in the MM are _very_ atypical in AC, hp, and attacks.....not to mention DR and misc powers.


----------



## RigaMortus

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> FYI, what you are talking about here is not "all according to the rules". You cannot become flatfooted in the middle of combat. Flatfooted only exists at the beginning of combat (as per the DMG).




Has Hype said, this isn't always true.  Balance checks can make someone flatfooted, and so can certain feats (the Low-Blow feat from Races of Faerun for one).

The other misconception is that losing your dex bonus is the same as being flat footed.  This too is not always true.  There are certain abilities and what not that can only take affect when someone is specifically flat-footed (but not when they simply lose their dex bonus w/o being flat footed).  The OA Samurai's skill Iaijutsu Focus only applies to flat footed opponents.


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> Problems here!
> 
> As you know, there are only 2 examples of CR 15s in the MM.  Extrapolating that to *all* CR 15 creatures would be.......in error.    Fro example, trying looking at the CR 15 creatures in other WotC products.  Or, if you think these are all out of whack, look at the trend in the data just within the MM, starting at CR 10 and working up to CR 20.  In any case, you'll see that the two CR 15 examples in the MM are _very_ atypical in AC, hp, and attacks.....not to mention DR and misc powers.




Fair enough. I am still evaluating the Warlock. He still seems pretty powerful, especially at lower levels (one 3D6 attack versus touch armor every round versus one normal attack by fighters that might do 10 points on average if it hits at 5th level).

He cannot be disarmed. His weapon cannot be sundered. He can even attack for serious damage while grappled. Silence spell does not bother him. He does not run out of ammo with ranged attacks. He can start using most magical items for other classes. Darkness and Devil's Sight combine are a fairly nice defense that can be achieved by 2nd level. And the rest of the Eldritch Essence Invocations are nothing to sneeze at.

All in all, most of the strengths of fighters (and sorcerers somewhat), and very few of the weaknesses.


----------



## Victim

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Perhaps. But assuming a party of 4 15th level  NPCs versus a party of 4 15th level PCs where one of them is a Warlock, not even using any of his other powers, a Warlock could easily take out virtually any single arcane caster NPC on the other side in 2 rounds (in round one if he gets surprise and his initiative roll is higher than his target).
> 
> 15th level NPC Sorcerer with average 53 hit points (Con 12) gets hit twice for 28 points on average from the 15th level PC Warlock and is unconscious (assuming the Warlock did not critical the first attack and take him out with 16D6 in a single blow). Ranged touch attacks are pretty darn easy at high level.
> 
> Average damage-wise, one Warlock is like having two Archer type fighters on your side. Sure, he might not be able to throw Fireballs and seriously injure multiple opponents in a single attack like the arcane casters, but one on one he is awesome.
> 
> If the opposing group has spell casters, I'd prefer to have a Warlock on my team. If the opposing group does not have spell casters, I'd prefer to have an arcane spell caster on my team.
> 
> You would think, but you'd be surprised what can happen "according to the initiative rules".




Yeah, and a normal 15th level arcane caster also 2 shots the enemy sorcercer with Scorching Ray.  The lesson here isn't "Warlocks are overpowered," it's "d4 classes need to boost their Con scores."  How many 15th level characters can't do 52 damage given almost 2 rounds in a row?


----------



## atom crash

> He can even attack for serious damage while grappled.




I could be wrong here, but I thought it was established that grappling a Warlock renders him ineffective. Even more so that casters.


----------



## KarinsDad

Victim said:
			
		

> Yeah, and a normal 15th level arcane caster also 2 shots the enemy sorcercer with Scorching Ray.  The lesson here isn't "Warlocks are overpowered," it's "d4 classes need to boost their Con scores."  How many 15th level characters can't do 52 damage given almost 2 rounds in a row?




Assuming the Sorcerer does not have some form of protection from fire (or globe of invulnerability up or spell resistance up) at 15th level.

There are very few protections from (higher level) EBs except spell resistance and even that can be sidestepped by Vitriolic Blast (doing 13D6 average instead of 7D6 at 15th level). Concealment miss chance (or equivalents like Mirror Image) is also helpful against it.

But, he can do Eldritch Chain Vitriolic Blast for 13D6 against up to 4 targets (eventually, 7D6 on round one, plus 2D6 for 3 rounds after that). Every single round. No save for half damage. No spell resistance. And a fairly high chance of success because it is a ranged touch attack. And if the ranged touch attack against any of the targets is in his threat range, a very good chance of doing 26D6 (assuming no way to get the acid off or neutralized) against that target. Now, the acid damage can be minimized with Resist Elements Acid (or even neutralized with Protection From Elements Acid for a short period), but this is still more potent than Scorching Ray (or even most area affect damage spells in most circumstances).

13D6 can take out a Barbarian in 4 to 5 rounds. A high CON wizard in 3 rounds (since he can do 7D6 on round one, 9D6 on round two, 11D6 on round three, up to a maximum of 13D6 on round four if he keeps hitting, but the overall average will still be 13D6 per round). Plus, with the extra acid on later rounds, opponents tend to die if they fall unconscious unless they get help.

Granted, there is only a 4.75% (5% * 95% chance of making the threat roll assuming a 95% chance of hitting each of their touch ACs) chance of doing 26D6 this way per target, but when firing at up to 4 targets per round, the odds are in your favor that it will happen in maybe a third of the battles at least once (the odds in one round with 4 such targets are 4.75% + 4.5125% + 4.286875% + 4.07253125% = 17.6% or one round in six).

Btw, at 16th level he can Empower Eldritch Chain Vitriolic Blast 3 times per day and do an average of 19.5D6 against up to four targets (39D6 if he criticals). Imagine this in a surprise round by the NPC Warlock. Four PCs have only taken 38 points of damage on average (assuming he did not critical any of them), but they have 3 more rounds of 10 points each round and if he wins initiative, the NPC Warlock can do it a second time before any of the PCs can react. That's 86 points of damage per PC and still more to come. Mass Cure Critical by the PC Cleric, and even then, the PCs are in trouble (unless the PC Cleric is 17th level and can do Mass Heal).


Plus, Warlocks at 12th level can make virtually any magic item they wish.


The jury is still out, but with a good set of other invocations, I can see a Warlock as a killing machine. Plus, I consider them more potent at lower levels than higher levels relative to their level. The chances of them surviving to get to higher level seem better than most other classes.


However, I do see your point. It takes time for him to dish out his damage and some other arcane spell casters can dish it out a little bit quicker (abet with saving throws and spell resistance rolls). But still, ...


----------



## KarinsDad

atom crash said:
			
		

> I could be wrong here, but I thought it was established that grappling a Warlock renders him ineffective. Even more so that casters.




Yes, I wrote that before I noticed the somatic component rule.

Hence, the reason for the "Flee the Scene" invocation (along with other concealing ones).

Actually, a level of Monk (taking Improved Grapple) or using up two feats to get Improved Grapple would seem prudent since this is a major weakness.


----------



## Thanee

The "problem" of the Warlock at higher levels is, that the effects are smaller than those from arcane casters, but arcane casters also do not run out of spells in a given day, usually.

Might happen once or twice in a campaign, but that's it at that level.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## -=Xar=-

I go with Thanee on this, the Warlock seems seriously underpowered on higher levels. You do have a steady damage output, but you can't compare it to, say, the wizards maximized firebrands (better yet, take a level of Archmage and make them sonic). The mage will run out of his powerfull spells in about 10 rounds, but by the time everything will be dead. Never had a fight longer than 5-6 rounds on high levels. Of course, the Warlock can simply go on to from encounter to encounter, but how about the rest of the party? Clerics need to rest too... This, and their few powers seem to make the Warlock not that effective at higher levels, especially when the party is confronted with differing situations. They make good NPC's though...


----------



## Nail

For those of you who think the warlock over powered:

Use one as a recurring NPC villian....and just change his "look" a bit so it's just SLAs instead of "invocations".  (Window dressing, really.)  The players will never know you are trying out a new class.


----------



## KarinsDad

Nail said:
			
		

> For those of you who think the warlock over powered:
> 
> Use one as a recurring NPC villian....and just change his "look" a bit so it's just SLAs instead of "invocations".  (Window dressing, really.)  The players will never know you are trying out a new class.




SLAs???


Actually, I just view him as a semi-Bard (without music) and with basically the equivalent of unlimited (both with respect to max damage and max times per day) Magic Missiles. So, stronger than a Bard at all levels, stronger than a Wizard/Sorcerer or Fighter type at lower levels, but less powerful than Wizards/Sorcerers/Cleric/Druid at higher levels (but still above most Fighter types in many respects at higher levels).

Almost an inverse of the normal power progression relative to other classes, he seems to kick butt at lower level, but then just seems to fade away towards Fighter type power levels at higher level. Which is good for a reoccurring NPC villain because he can survive to fight another day and the PCs will eventually outgrow him (on their way to greater challenges). 


PS. As long as his damage is D6 regardless of race (unlike weapon damage), might as well make any NPC Warlock Reoccurring Villain a Halfling (or even for a PC Warlock) since his strength is in number of rounds fighting (i.e. he will need to outlast opponents) and getting that +2 to hit with EB, +2 to AC, and +1 on all saves (+2 on Reflex saves) will sometimes keep him alive long enough to wipe his opponents. Just a tad better offensively and defensively than those around him.


----------



## Saeviomagy

Frankly, I think the party walking around with devils sight and deeper darkness is barely adequate revenge for the fact that of all the creatures in the game, only halflings and humans do not have low light sight or better. Tell me that players are not supposed to be screwed by bad lighting conditions. Turning that around is just an awesome tactic.


----------



## The It's Man

reanjr said:
			
		

> Is there no one who just enforces the HP rules?  I mean, yeah, low HP is a detriment and that's why players have the option to take average.  If you choose not to take average and you roll a 1, then why are you complaining?  I always take average at 2nd level and roll from then on.  Gives you a good start, but maintains the high average over a long career.



/me raises hand

The DM of my weekly game lets us choose to roll or to take half maximum (first level is maximum hitpoints for both variants). I always roll.


----------



## jonexmachina

*In defense of warlocks*

IMO, the Warlock is balanced in most campaigns, Especially as a PC. A party really gets on the nerves of a Warlock trying to pull the Fell Flight/Spiderwalk/FTS hit and run they are really good at - they may have unlimited damage, but in my experience it comes out really slowly, and fights are usually short enough that the warlock's Energizer Bunny trick doesnt really come into it.

Also remember the horrible base range on Eldritch Blast, and the fact that a warlock really only has 3 invocations to spend on Least - and there are much more appealing options than Eldritch Spear. 

However, I feel the comparison to nonmagical ranged combatants is apt, but mostly because bow users are underpowered .

Conversely, I feel that magical ranged combatants (especially wizards) are overpowered - the warlock 15 might hit for his nasty Eldritch blast 95% of the time, but so does the wizard 15 using a Polar Ray for 15d6, or twinned empowered Scorching Ray for 30d6. He can only do it two or three times a day - but in a pitched fight, I would rather have fast than slow.


Edit - Warlocks are a little bit too good at lower levels, but that is really only compared to casters (which are always horrible until 3rd lvl) I believe that in most circumstances, an archer with rapid fire will beat a warlock in damage until about 5th level. (most circumstances meaning low ACs, as at low levels the MM is not yet obsessed with giving monsters huge natural AC)


----------



## Nail

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> SLAs???



Spell-Like Abilities.

Sorry.  

Look, without putting too fine a point on it (as my palyers read these boards): monsters are essentially PC with different class abilities.  Surely the conversion can work the other way, especially if you think the class in question is out of balance (and you want to give it a try).

A Warlock 15 is a CR 15, right?


----------



## Hannibal Barca

The ever morphing 3.0/3.5 Darkness, hit point rolls, warlock thread. Where will it go next?


----------



## Thanee

Did you know that ninjas can hide in shadows, even if they do not wear their black ninja dresses? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KarinsDad

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There really is no difference between total concealment and invisibility for an attacker.
> 
> "Invisible: Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents’ Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)."
> 
> Nothing states that invisible means that you must be under the influence of a spell or power.
> 
> A character in the dark is "Visually undetectable". A character in total concealment is "Visually undetectable".
> 
> 
> Even without total concealment, you won't necessarily see an opponent until you make a Spot roll (or he shoots you or something) and if you cannot see your opponent, you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC (minimally).
> 
> For example from the SRD:
> 
> "A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see."
> 
> "Blinded: The character cannot see. He takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)"
> 
> "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC"
> 
> 
> Since the attack modifier rules for blindness and invisibilty are effectively the same (one is +2 to hit and the other is -2 to AC), it seems that if you do not see an attacker, it's tough to react. Granted, a DM could rule that you see the arrow for the split second that it comes into the light (and hence he does not get the +2 to hit), but if he would rule that for a character you cannot see in the darkness, why would he rule that way for an invisible character that is standing in bright light and firing an arrow at you?
> 
> In any case, this is how our DM is running it. It appears to be what was intended.




http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a

"When facing a totally concealed foe, a creature is denied Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class and the attacker gets a +2 attack bonus as well."

Thanks to Darkness for this link (in another thread).


----------



## azmodean

karinsdad said:
			
		

> Hence, the reason for the "Flee the Scene" invocation (along with other concealing ones).
> 
> Actually, a level of Monk (taking Improved Grapple) or using up two feats to get Improved Grapple would seem prudent since this is a major weakness.




Grapple is still a killer for a warlock, even if they have improved grapple from somewhere, where do they get the strength and bab to out-grapple a fighter?

Also flee the scene still requires a hefty concentration check even if it does not involve somatic components.  

Hmmm, only 20+spell level, can't remember the effective level of Flee the Scene, but if you max out concentration you should be able to pull some 30s by lvl 15, so about a 75% chance of making it I'd say.
Does casting a spell while grappled provoke AoOs?  If so, how would casting defensively work?


----------



## KarinsDad

azmodean said:
			
		

> Grapple is still a killer for a warlock, even if they have improved grapple from somewhere, where do they get the strength and bab to out-grapple a fighter?




Warlocks have the 3/4 BAB progression. So, Improved Grapple would help a lot at low to mid levels (putting him at par or better when grappling than most Fighters or Monks at low levels). Even at high levels, say at level 20, his grapple check modifier would be:

15 + 4 + STR

versus the typical Fighter's (unless he too has Improved Grapple which is not too common for most Fighters) of:

20 + STR

Even a Monk with Improved Grapple only has:

19 + STR

and Monks without it have:

15 + STR

Granted, a Fighter will often have a higher strength, but this at least gives the Warlock a fighting chance. Plus, most Fighters cannot damage the Warlock too much while he is grappled (although Monks could).

And since Warlocks can make any item for which they have the item creation feat at 12th level, it seems prudent to take Craft Wondrous Item and make items which would help in a grappling circumstance (e.g. Strength item, Dimension Door item, Gaseous Form item, etc.), anything that would enable him to get out of a grapple.

One of the best items might be a Freedom of Movement Ring (which merely requires the Forge Ring feat).

Plus, if your opponent does not have Improved Grapple, then you get an AoO against him and if you damage him, the grapple fails.

All in all, Improved Grapple is almost a must for a Warlock who ever gets near melee range.



			
				azmodean said:
			
		

> Also flee the scene still requires a hefty concentration check even if it does not involve somatic components.
> 
> Hmmm, only 20+spell level, can't remember the effective level of Flee the Scene, but if you max out concentration you should be able to pull some 30s by lvl 15, so about a 75% chance of making it I'd say.




Actually, Flee the Scene does still have a somatic component and cannot be performed while grappled. All invocations have a somatic component.

Fell Flight before being grappled is probably preferable to Flee the Scene, however, this would only work in 20+ foot high rooms or outdoors or such.



			
				azmodean said:
			
		

> Does casting a spell while grappled provoke AoOs?  If so, how would casting defensively work?




For a Warlock, he cannot perform invocations while grappled. He would have to rely on items or his own grappling ability to survive.

Outside of grappling (i.e. damage), he is allowed to "invocate defensively".

But, if you think about it, his grappling survival chance, even without Improved Grapple, is still often better than most Wizards or Sorcerers who would probably rely on Dimension Door if they make their Concentration roll.


----------



## Gort

I managed to get bored of playing a 10th level warlock I wrote as an NPC _in a single fight_. I think the true challenge of the warlock would be to find ways to not get bored of spending every single round casting eldritch blast over and over and over.


----------



## Jhulae

Devil's sight only has a 30' radius.  And, while it lets you ignore darkness effects, it doesn't let you ignore invisibility.  All you have to do is keep things more than 30' away and they're blind.

So, basically, you aren't having spellcasters (or rogues with wands) standing more than 30' away casting fireballs (or any other area effect) at the center of the darkened area?  You're not using ranged weapons at all against these warlocks?  You're not using a myriad of creatures (as was pointed out) that have no trouble overcoming darkness?

I dunno.  Warlocks seem like they have some serious limitations to the power they wield.


----------



## Particle_Man

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Warlocks have the 3/4 BAB progression. So, Improved Grapple would help a lot at low to mid levels (putting him at par or better when grappling than most Fighters or Monks at low levels).
> 
> And since Warlocks can make any item for which they have the item creation feat at 12th level, it seems prudent to take Craft Wondrous Item and make items which would help in a grappling circumstance (e.g. Strength item, Dimension Door item, Gaseous Form item, etc.), anything that would enable him to get out of a grapple.
> 
> One of the best items might be a Freedom of Movement Ring (which merely requires the Forge Ring feat).




This actually makes the point that the Warlock is so hosed in a grapple that they *NEED* to spend at least one feat purely to help them out in grapple situations.  And unlike Wizards, Walocks do not get any bonus feats to play around with.  Since they don't get the *kewl* "make any item with the right feat" ability until 12th level, that leaves Improved Grapple and Sudden Still Spell as the prime choices for the low to mid level Warlock.  I went with Sudden Still Spell and Flee the Scene, myself.


----------



## KarinsDad

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> This actually makes the point that the Warlock is so hosed in a grapple that they *NEED* to spend at least one feat purely to help them out in grapple situations.  And unlike Wizards, Walocks do not get any bonus feats to play around with.  Since they don't get the *kewl* "make any item with the right feat" ability until 12th level, that leaves Improved Grapple and Sudden Still Spell as the prime choices for the low to mid level Warlock.  I went with Sudden Still Spell and Flee the Scene, myself.




Which book is Sudden Still Spell found in? I assume it is a feat that affects spell like abilities. I couldn't find such a thing, so I went with the Improved Grapple route. I agree that a no somatic feat combined with Flee the Scene is vastly preferable. In fact, even Flee the Scene is not really needed (although still desired) since while grappled, you just blast away (abet with a Concentration roll) at the guy holding you. You will do more damage to them then they will do to you and if their buddies try to help out, they could still accidentally hit their ally.

Mental note to add Sudden Still Spell to my Lawful Evil NPC Halfling Warlock Reoccurring Villain.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Sudden Still is originally in the Miniatures Handbook, and was updated / reprinted in ... Complete Arcane?


----------



## atom crash

Complete Arcane is correct.

There also was a spontaneous metamagic variant published in Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## KarinsDad

atom crash said:
			
		

> Complete Arcane is correct.
> 
> There also was a spontaneous metamagic variant published in Unearthed Arcana.




Thanks guys.

I specifically looked in CA (the obvious place to find such a feat) for it, but couldn't find it. Must be getting blind in my old age.


----------



## RigaMortus

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In fact, even Flee the Scene is not really needed (although still desired) since while grappled, you just blast away (abet with a Concentration roll) at the guy holding you.




From the PHB"



> *If You're Grappling*
> When you are grappling (regardless who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions...
> 
> *Cast a spell*: Attempt to cast a spell while grappling or even while pinned (see below), provided it's casting time is no more than 1 standard action, it has no somatic component, and you have in hand any material components or focuses you might need.  Any spell that requires precise and careful action, such as drawing a circle with powered silver for _protection from evil_, is impossible to cast while grappling or being pinned.  If the spell is one that you can cast while grappling, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or lose the spell.  You don't have to make a successful grapple check to cast the spell.




Unfortunately, ALL of the Warlock's invocations (including Eldritch Blast) are spell-like abilities that require somatic components to cast.  So even with Still Spell (which removes the somatic component), you still need a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) to either "cast" Eldrtich Blast or Flee the Scene.


----------



## Nail

Which, IIRC and according to the errata, is DC 21.  Not impossible.


----------



## Particle_Man

The downside of Sudden Still is that it can only be used 1x/day.


----------



## KarinsDad

Sudden Still Spell does not work for Warlocks.

It is a metamagic feat that affects spells, not spell like abilities.

Metamagic feats that affects spells are not usable by Warlocks. Only feats that affect spell like abilities like Ability Focus, Heighten Spell-Like Ability, Maximize Spell-Like Ability, Empower Spell-Like Ability, and Quicken Spell-Like Ability. Glad to know I wasn't going blind.  


So, Improved Grapping and an eventual Ring of Freedom of Movement appear to still be the front runners for anti-grappling techniques.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sudden Still Spell does not work for Warlocks.
> 
> It is a metamagic feat that affects spells, not spell like abilities.




I believe that's incorrect.

Read the Warlock class description.  As has been posted the last couple times this was discussed, the Warlock class specifically mentions these feats as being useable, as "they do not increase spell level."  Right?


----------



## Egres

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I believe that's incorrect.
> 
> Read the Warlock class description.  As has been posted the last couple times this was discussed, the Warlock class specifically mentions these feats as being useable, as "they do not increase spell level."  Right?



Right.

Complete Arcane, page 71.


----------



## Felonious Monk

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I believe that's incorrect.
> 
> Read the Warlock class description.  As has been posted the last couple times this was discussed, the Warlock class specifically mentions these feats as being useable, as "they do not increase spell level."  Right?



 Which brings into question the use of other metamagic feats which do not affect spell level.

The Sudden feats are on page 83.


----------



## Diirk

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You will do more damage to them then they will do to you and if their buddies try to help out, they could still accidentally hit their ally.




Only ranged attackers can accidentally hit their allies in a grapple. Melee attacks suffer no such impediment.


----------



## KarinsDad

Egres said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> Complete Arcane, page 71.




I hate when they have exceptions to the rules hidden somewhere.

Complete Arcane, page 7.

"Metamagic feats cannot improve a warlock's eldritch blast (because it is a spell-like ability, not a spell). However, the feat Ability Focus (eldritch blast) ..."

That is such a pain in the butt. They should have put this exception that Warlocks could use these right in the Sudden XXX Spell feat descriptions (i.e. it would have taken no real effort to state "any spell or any spell-like ability" instead of "any spell" in the descriptions).


Thanks for pointing out the obscure exception to the general rules guys.


Btw, some of these feats are somewhat screwed up anyway.

Sudden Still Spell works for Warlocks (as does most of the other Sudden XXX Spells).

Sudden Silent Spell does NOT work for Warlocks (since they have no verbal component as specified on page 72).

Sudden Quicken Spell does not work very well for Warlocks since he has to take two totally worthless feats (Quicken Spell and Sudden Silent Spell) as two of his prerequisites, plus he has to take 4 other Sudden feats. He might as well take Quicken Spell-like Ability (one feat total) which has no feat prerequisties and can be done 3 times per day (and can be acquired at an earlier level). The only advantage Sudden Quicken Spell has over Quicken Spell-like Ability is that it can be done for higher level spells. I'm not sure that that is ever worth four once per day feats (several of which will rarely be use most days) plus two totally worthless feats that cannot be used at all unless he multiclasses (and he would have to multiclass a lot to use Quicken Spell).

Plus, Sudden Quicken Spell does not work that great for other spell casters either since it has 6 prerequisites, 5 of which are Sudden (and hence, usable once per day and then, not most days). This is practically worthless for anyone except a Wizard and even so, using up 7 feat slots to get one specific once per day cool feat is pretty costly. I suspect that any PC spell caster that attempts to eventually take Sudden Quicken Spell will have a much harder time surviving to ever get it, just because he has virtually no feats at low to mid levels (course, a DM could just hand these feats to a higher level NPC).


----------



## Particle_Man

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I suspect that any PC spell caster that attempts to eventually take Sudden Quicken Spell will have a much harder time surviving to ever get it, just because he has virtually no feats at low to mid levels (course, a DM could just hand these feats to a higher level NPC).




Agreed.  I think that it is used precisely for the NPC encounter when the BBEG starts quickening that highest level spell.  And the DM doesn't want to worry about other stuff too much.


----------



## Sithobi1

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The only advantage Sudden Quicken Spell has over Quicken Spell-like Ability is that it can be done for higher level spells. I'm not sure that that is ever worth four once per day feats (several of which will rarely be use most days) plus two totally worthless feats that cannot be used at all unless he multiclasses (and he would have to multiclass a lot to use Quicken Spell).



Unfortunately, Quicken SLA cannot be used on all SLAs usable by the possessor of the feat. You have to choose 1 SLA to quicken 3/day.
Edit: Does quicken SLA get rid of the somatic component?


----------



## purespoo

Don't forget that Devil Sight only covers darkness and magical darkness. It does not cover illusions or other physical obstructions.

An illusion in magic darkness is still perceived as an illusion. They would also need 'Witch's Sight' in order to see through that.

In an end all case, fog cloud and smoke will also work as a countermeasure. You don't need to see the area your casting in to summon a cloud of smoke.  Even if it is darkness, all they would see is fog. Even if you can't see in the fog, you still can buy yourself time by hiding in it. Position the warlock in an attack in dense outdoor fog.  He/she tries to cast it and ends up blinding everything including himself.


----------



## Dandu

Your response is illuminating.


----------



## Greenfield

_Darkness_ is a 1st level spell/invocation.

_Continual Flame_, as used to create the common-as-dirt ever burning torch, right out of the Player's Handbook, is a 3rd level Light spell.  Cancels the _Darkness_ spell/invocation automatically.

<Edit> 3rd level _Cleric_ spell, 2nd level Sorc/Wiz spell.  Still stops _Darkness_</Edit>

In some of my games I, as a player, had my character use the Heighten Spell feat to create ever burning torches with 4th level _Continual Flame_ spells, so they'd take down _Deeper Darkness_ as well 

Extreme problem solved by extremely common item.


----------



## Dandu

I prefer to cast Magic Missile.


----------



## YOGZULA

i'd have disallowed the power gaming 1 point warlock point dip if nothing else


----------



## Dandu

Yeah, dips for powergaming are the worst. It's just like that time I took a level in martial artist for the gun-fu perk when my base class was chemist for three solid levels.


----------



## Eltab

OP:
If your group is not travelling often or quickly, word WILL get out about them and their tactics.  Feel free to have some BBEGs and smart Enemies start to prepare for the known danger.

- Traps don't care if they can see you, you just step on the trigger plate - which you can't see any difference between it and all the other stones that make up the floor - and they go Bang.
- Poison gas will look like fog in the dark, I would think.
- Troglodytes don't have to hit you, they just have to be close by your nose, to mess you up.
- Drow might see the PCs as a challenge to their notions of cultural superiority.  Who has longer-ranged Darkvision?
- Magical lantern that sheds dim light no matter what spells are operating around it.  (Only works in that particular room.)
- Have the blinded enemy retreat through a door and close it, (now they are in light again), and set up an ambush for "when something opens the door".
- Maybe the head of the Thieves Guild DOES have a way to extract a favor from a youngling dragon...
- Bat-stirges (may be described as "vampire bats"): use blindsight and drain HP.
- Medusas use Gaze attacks, but they are truly just scouts for the REAL threat in this dungeon.
- Can all the PCs see in the magical dark?  If not, a stairwell behind a door will be entertaining.
- A monster with Tremorsense (an Earth Elemental?) can find you as long as you step along the ground.
- A monster with Tremorsense and a Tunnel speed can swipe at the PCs then hide within the walls.  Pppphhhtt !
- 4e Kobolds got a bunch of low-damage "grenade"-like weapons that had status effects attached.  They threw a beehive into the Darkness just to bug you (pun intended).


----------



## Greenfield

Your "magic lantern" idea is a bit contrived.  A perfectly ordinary Everburning Torch will do the job.

_Continual Flame_, cast by a Cleric, is a 3rd level spell with the Light descriptor.  Its light automatically ends any lower level Darkness spell it encounters.  

It will also take down _Deeper Darkness"_, which is also 3rd level, though it gives it's "life" to do so.

But if it's prepared using Heighten Spell to make the _Continual Flame_ a spell of 4th level or higher, then it takes down every standard _Darkness_ spell/effect in the book, even the huge area version cast by a Black Dragon.

Now, where would an adventurer encounter such a marvelous bit of magic?  In any town that sells adventuring gear (in other words, it's right out of the equipment section of the PHB.)

To put it more simply, their tactic should have been failing, regularly, almost from the start.  It should be a non-issue.

And here's the best part:  Does the adventuring party have any of those among their own members' gear?


----------



## CapnZapp

This thread radiates a moderate necromancy aura.

Other than that, it's eerie to see how little the game has changed in this particular regard.


----------



## elgatochurro

do not disallow it, work around it...  honestly.. you're a DM youre supposed to be able to handle players powers and decisions more than anything else.  have the monsters be more spread out...

not only that but you can make a whole campaign based on this, idk about the drow but Devils and demons all have devils sight as well, nullifying the tactic, while i dont mean run only encounters that can nullify their party, a campaign around such creatures popping up would be excellent.  you also dont need to pile on the enemies in one area and you can in fact have them move about in darkness, they do not need to see in order to walk, but it may obstruct their movement, id base their success on a int check with the enemies.


----------



## elgatochurro

why though?


----------



## amethal

This thread just will not die ...


----------



## Greenfield

The Darkness spell is 2nd level, or a "Least invocation", meaning it's the equivalent of a 1st level spell when used by a Warlock



			
				Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> Continual Flame
> Evocation [Light]
> Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2
> Components: V, S, M
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Range: Touch
> Target: Object touched
> Effect: Magical, heatless flame
> Duration: Permanent
> Saving Throw: None
> Spell Resistance: No
> A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched.
> Light spells counter and dispel darkness spells of an equal or lower level.
> Material Component: You sprinkle ruby dust (worth 50 gp) on the item that is to carry the flame.




As shown, Continual Flame is a 2nd level Evocation(Light) spell (3rd if the caster is a Cleric), and counters or cancels any Darkness effect of the same or lower level.

So if anyone in the party has a Continual flame torch in the area, bye-bye Darkness.  

If any opponent has an Eternal Torch, as sold in the Player's Handbook, bye-bye Darkness.  

If there are any such torches or lights along the halls of the dungeon or structure you're in, bye-bye Darkness.

I used to play with a DM whose group-monsters *ALWAYS* used Darkness.  Somehow his monsters were never hindered by it.  He nearly went ballistic when my Cleric brought out his forever-light and took the Darkness away.

But that very common item, one that almost every adventuring party has, makes the whole problem go away.


----------

