# The Most Underpowered Class?



## epochrpg (Nov 24, 2009)

So which class in 4e is the most underpowered in your opinion?  In 3.5, many people thought that the Fighter was underpowered (I wasn't among them)- what in 4e is the equivilent?  

You can consider all of the classes from the core books that have been released to date- but not the Monk, Assassin, or any others that haven't been published in a dead tree book yet.  

You also of course, should explain _why_ you think that class is underpowered.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 24, 2009)

Well, it sure ain't the Fighter. 

Pre-DP it was the Paladin, I'd say.

Now with all classes on a level (all have their <Source> Power book released), I don't really know... maybe the Warlock?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 24, 2009)

Ratcatcher.


----------



## Baumi (Nov 24, 2009)

I have seen quite powerful Warlocks and no warlock Player in my Groups has complained about his Class, so I don't think they are really weak.

4E has a great balance, the only class I would consider weak is the Druid but I'm not sure if this is true anymore with the AV2 and the Primal Power book.

P.S.: Forgot an explanation why I think the Druid is "weak": I GM two Groups with Druids in it (one went from level 1 to 8 the other from 1 to 2) and they were the only Characters that I could simply ignore. Their Damage was lackluster and I felt no real Controlling (weak Status-Effects and only a few multi-target Powers).


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Nov 24, 2009)

I would go warlock, or at least starlock - I tried playing one for 5 levels and it was hair-tearing frustration.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 24, 2009)

Nothing leaps out to me as being particularly underpowered, even pre-Divine Power paladins and warlocks. I played a paladin pre-Divine Power and I didn't feel underpowered compared to the other PCs. I've never played a warlock myself, but I've seen a fairly effective one in a paragon campaign I played in.

I'm sure that with enough math or Monte Carlo simulations, one class might be shown to be underpowered by whatever metric you might decide on: damage, conditions inflicted, defenses, ability to heal or help allies, or some weighted index of all the above. However, I don't think that it becomes obvious in play, even to fairly experienced gamers.

And that, I would say, is one key strength of 4E.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 24, 2009)

I think it must be Rogue. I mean, no lightning keyword at all? That must mean they lack any form of electric power!

I am not sure if it's underpowered, but at least some types of Warlock (Star Pact) are hard to build effectively. It is not immediate obvious what would be the best route - I am still not certain, actually.


----------



## Destil (Nov 24, 2009)

Most likely the Psion, Monk and Seeker, just as a support issue.

PHB3 and the 2nd round of power books will most likely even them out, though.

You can build a really bad hybrid, for what it's worth. It's the easiest 'class' to make underpowered.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> I would go warlock, or at least starlock - I tried playing one for 5 levels and it was hair-tearing frustration.




Starlock can suffer from MAD, but you don't have to take both CON and CHA powers.

I would say that while Feylocks are hard to nail down, they just don't have the punch of other classes. Many of the 'controlerish' powers are of limited, situational use. The damage tends to lag. In order to get back on track you have to wait until Paragon, then add another pact.


----------



## Thanee (Nov 24, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Nothing leaps out to me as being particularly underpowered, ...
> 
> And that, I would say, is one key strength of 4E.




Yeah, the balance between the classes is pretty well done.
The balance between monsters and PCs is another issue, of course.

What does seem to make a lot of difference, however, at least in my experience, is the primary attribute. If there is a difference of 2 points in modifier between two similar PCs, that is definitely felt in the game.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## babinro (Nov 24, 2009)

The great thing about this question is that its not easy to answer.  Which says something really good about 4E in my mind.

So far the most underpowered character I've seen is a primal guardian druid.  However, while it came across as underpowered, it was by far the most versatile and probably has the most fun dailies of characters I've seen played.

While I'm sure a lot of people will say Warlock, I've only ever seen a Fey Warlock played, and I would say they are the most overpowered race in 4E (followed closely or on par with a Bow Ranger).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Nov 24, 2009)

I agree with the others, that it's not so much about a class in general, but a build within a class.  It also depends on the source materials allowed.  babinro is right in that this does say something good about 4E.  Arguments about poor classes in 3.X were about magical items (i.e. try and build a fighter who was as good as a spellcaster, _without items_).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Nov 24, 2009)

the starlock has a +X to attack packt boon which should make up for the lost to hit bonus from lower stats. And at least one packt which has reasons to use eldritch blast a lot...


----------



## ShaggySpellsword (Nov 24, 2009)

In my experience, it is either the Druid or the Rogue.

Druids don't seem to have a very good focus for their control, and their strange versatility from access to both ranged nature powers and beast close-range powers makes them, as a controller, seem far behind the damage of the Invoker or the lock-down conditions of the Wizard.

The Rogue, on the other hand, when played as a melee combatant, is crunchy.  While Dex is a primary stat for AC, he doesn't get Barbarian HP, Ranger Toughness, Avenger HP, or Infernal-Lock Temporary Hit Points.  Too crunchy for melee, forcing you to go ranged, limiting the total scope of the class.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 24, 2009)

ShaggySpellsword said:


> In my experience, it is either the Druid or the Rogue.
> 
> Druids don't seem to have a very good focus for their control, and their strange versatility from access to both ranged nature powers and beast close-range powers makes them, as a controller, seem far behind the damage of the Invoker or the lock-down conditions of the Wizard.
> 
> The Rogue, on the other hand, when played as a melee combatant, is crunchy.  While Dex is a primary stat for AC, he doesn't get Barbarian HP, Ranger Toughness, Avenger HP, or Infernal-Lock Temporary Hit Points.  Too crunchy for melee, forcing you to go ranged, limiting the total scope of the class.




If a Rogue isn't working in conjunction with another character, preferably a defender, then he isn't maximizing his potential. Defender marks opponent with an attack. Rogue moves to a flanking position and does big damage. Opponent now has to choose between hitting the Rogue, whose AC is being boosted by the mark, and then being in turn hit by the defender or ignoring the Rogue in favour of the defender, thereby taking easy big damage.

Then there's the charging build of Rogue; have several items that add damage on a charge, plus an item or abilities that let you shift one or more squares after a charge. Lather, rinse, repeat.

A Rogue that works alone is frequently a DEAD Rogue, as one of our players continually found out.


----------



## ShaggySpellsword (Nov 24, 2009)

We have a big group, and frequently, there aren't enough defenders to go around.  I suppose this easily could have colored my opinions of Rogues.

For example: For a while our party consisted of a Bard, Warlord, Barbarian, Invoker, and Warlock.  A Rogue would not have been super successful in this party.  We have recently lost the Warlock and had a new player join (Warden) and an old player return (Fighter).  All of a sudden, combats are far less stressful for the Tiefling Thaneborn Barbarian/Paladin (me) who had to pretend to be a defender.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 24, 2009)

ShaggySpellsword said:


> We have a big group, and frequently, there aren't enough defenders to go around.  I suppose this easily could have colored my opinions of Rogues.
> 
> For example: For a while our party consisted of a Bard, Warlord, Barbarian, Invoker, and Warlock.  A Rogue would not have been super successful in this party.  We have recently lost the Warlock and had a new player join (Warden) and an old player return (Fighter).  All of a sudden, combats are far less stressful for the Tiefling Thaneborn Barbarian/Paladin (me) who had to pretend to be a defender.




He should have worked fairly well with the Bard. 

When you don't have defenders, then you have to use wolf pack tactics; hit and run. You have to find ways to not get nailed down. Our archer Ranger hasn't quite figured this out yet as he continually hides in corners, then gets hemmed in. If my Fey Switch has already been used, it's resurrection time.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 24, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> Ratcatcher.




No, ratcatchers are awesome. Resistance to disease _and_ resistance to poison? Yes, please!


----------



## Felon (Nov 24, 2009)

babinro said:


> The great thing about this question is that its not easy to answer.  Which says something really good about 4E in my mind.



Let's not get too warm and fuzzy here. This is the internet. When one person proclaims something adamantly, a score of people feel compelled to rush forth and denounce it with equal resolution.

There are some pretty blatant power discrepancies in 4e. Most obvious is that any class that has to use implements is going to pack less of a punch than a class that gets to use [W] attacks, and they're not compensated in any kind of quantifiable way. Most heavily impacted by that discrepancy are strikers, since it's the most damage-centric class. That leaves warlocks and sorcerers warranting examination. Sorcerers can focus on multi-target damage than any other striker currently, so they have a niche. Warlocks are, however, among the most single-target-oriented, and their damage is sub-par. This creates a valid argument for deeming them inadequate at their role.



> While I'm sure a lot of people will say Warlock, I've only ever seen a Fey Warlock played, and I would say they are the most overpowered race in 4E (followed closely or on par with a Bow Ranger).



I've been in a lot of threads about the warlock since 4e kicked off. Almost invariably it seems that those who contest the notion that the warlock is deficient are not people who actually play a warlock. Rather, they watch other people play warlocks. Just sayin' 

I've played one for over a year. They really do kinda stink for a number of reasons. The low damage is pretty discouraging, but it really is just one of many factors. In that respect, it's kinda disappointing that the unimpressive damage becomes the crux of most warlock discussions. Another big problem is how options are whittled down at every turn. There's the Con/Cha split that can practically cut the number of choices in half. Then there's the lack of a +Con/+Int race, or even another class that uses Con as its primary ability score. There's the mandatory at-will powers. There's the emphasis on heavily-resisted damage types like necrotic and poison. And then at something of a more subtle level, the encounter powers are without much variation. They're mostly range-10, target one creature, tack on some rider effect. It's not jsut that a warlock doesn't feel powerful or impressive, it's that there's little sense of proprietorship.

And they made tieflings +Cha/+Int. That I never will get. The race that should really put a face on the infernal pact warlock instead make for superlative fey pact warlocks.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 24, 2009)

Warlocks _are_ underpowered. But they make up for it by being the coolest class. 

And yes, implement users are gimped. Where is my brutal rod? Where are my bracers of +2 damage to all my attacks? Where is my high-crit orb?


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 24, 2009)

lukelightning said:


> warlocks _are_ underpowered. But they make up for it by being the coolest class.
> 
> And yes, implement users are gimped. Where is my brutal rod? Where are my bracers of +2 damage to all my attacks? Where is my high-crit orb?




phb3?


----------



## Spatula (Nov 24, 2009)

I would say that, for arcane strikers anyway, Arcane Power largely removed the weapon / implement disparity. Assuming you can swing the 13 Dex for dual implement spellcaster, anyway. The bonus damage from that should overtake the extra damage that weapon wielders get from superior weapons before you hit paragon (just hold onto your +2 implement when you get a +3 one). And that extra damage is multiplied by all the targets you're hitting, for classes that have multi-target spells.


----------



## Diirk (Nov 25, 2009)

Spatula said:


> I would say that, for arcane strikers anyway, Arcane Power largely removed the weapon / implement disparity. Assuming you can swing the 13 Dex for dual implement spellcaster, anyway. The bonus damage from that should overtake the extra damage that weapon wielders get from superior weapons before you hit paragon (just hold onto your +2 implement when you get a +3 one). And that extra damage is multiplied by all the targets you're hitting, for classes that have multi-target spells.




You could say that but I suspect you'd be wrong. Dual Implement makes up for iron armbands of power, and thats pretty much it. Weapon users still have plenty of other ways to boost damage that arcane users don't have. Area effect powers help implement users with this a bit, but keep in mind... its not like weapon classes have no area powers. They actually have some scarily good ones.


----------



## jester_gl (Nov 25, 2009)

Personally, I think warlord is among the weakest, at least at low level (never seen on high level so I cannot say).  As a healer, they are the worst, even being surclassed by paladin in some case.  As a damage dealer they are lackluster.  The buff they gives are subpar to most other leader type buff.

I used a warlord as an NPC for a three player team, as his ability to give other players some spotlight time is usefull for an NPC.  But players who tried warlord at my table were always lackluster and behind someone else in every possible way.

The worst was probably the ressourceful warlord because of a similar issue with the starlock, three required stats.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Nov 25, 2009)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> I would go warlock, or at least starlock - I tried playing one for 5 levels and it was hair-tearing frustration.




I had to watch my wife suffer with a Starlock for almost as long.  She had a fantastic back story for her PC but the image of her just sucking in combat after combat prompted me to suggest she look at the Sorcerer - specifically Storm Sorcerer as this fit even better with her back story.  We had an in game situation where she found an ancient staff of her order and it transformed her from a Warlock to a Sorcerer severing her ties to the Far Realm (still haven't seen any repercussions from that...yet).  Much, much better class flavour-wise and mechanics wise too!


----------



## WOLead (Nov 25, 2009)

Starlock.  Needing 3 ability scores to keep up a good AC and attack rolls.  Dropping Con leads to only 1 At-Will, a Basic Melee Attack or a Basic Ranged attack being all thats left.  Dropping Charisma looses most Charisma based powers specifically tailored for Starlock, much less powers from the Star Pact Paragon Paths.  Loosing Intelligence drops the various benefits tailored for Star Pact, as well as needing 13 Str for Chainmail prof or loose any decent AC.  Even the At-Will given for Starlocks is counter-intuitive, being a vs. Fortitude power that is meant to prevent melees(Soldiers and Brutes mostly) to prevent getting closer but those having the highest Fort anyways.
The Starlock is a bundle of "Argh!", despite the fact I like its flavor.


----------



## Skallgrim (Nov 25, 2009)

I think (and looking at responses, I think that this is backed up by others) that it isn't a case of an "Underpowered Class".  

What you instead have are some classes with many viable builds (Fighter) and others with just a few viable builds and many subpar/ineffective/situational builds (Warlock). It is hard to build an ineffective fighter (without being deliberately dumb and taking a low primary stat and failing to boost it, etc), but many people have constructed characterful, plausible Warlocks only to discover that, particularly as you advance, they lag in power behind the rest of the party.

So, if we were to redefine "Underpowered" as "having the fewest choices for powerful builds", I think Warlock would be right up there at the top.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 25, 2009)

Skallgrim said:


> I think (and looking at responses, I think that this is backed up by others) that it isn't a case of an "Underpowered Class".
> 
> What you instead have are some classes with many viable builds (Fighter) and others with just a few viable builds and many subpar/ineffective/situational builds (Warlock). It is hard to build an ineffective fighter (without being deliberately dumb and taking a low primary stat and failing to boost it, etc), but many people have constructed characterful, plausible Warlocks only to discover that, particularly as you advance, they lag in power behind the rest of the party.
> 
> So, if we were to redefine "Underpowered" as "having the fewest choices for powerful builds", I think Warlock would be right up there at the top.




Excellent post. Have an xp.


----------



## tiornys (Nov 25, 2009)

jester_gl said:


> Personally, I think warlord is among the weakest, at least at low level (never seen on high level so I cannot say).  As a healer, they are the worst, even being surclassed by paladin in some case.  As a damage dealer they are lackluster.  The buff they gives are subpar to most other leader type buff.
> 
> I used a warlord as an NPC for a three player team, as his ability to give other players some spotlight time is usefull for an NPC.  But players who tried warlord at my table were always lackluster and behind someone else in every possible way.
> 
> The worst was probably the ressourceful warlord because of a similar issue with the starlock, three required stats.



Again, I'd say this is a build and/or player issue, not a class issue.  Warlords, especially Tactical, are considered by many to be the best leaders, and I know from experience that my low level Warlord is consistently one of the most effective characters in LFR games.

Of course, the Warlords I've seen in play are generally granting buffs that are superior to those of other leaders (level 2 encounter level nova:  get an ally to ready their attack on Adaptive Stratagem, use Warlord's Favor and grant that ally a +5 to attack, Adaptive Stratagem to give them +4 to damage, their readied action triggers at +5/+4, action point Commander's Strike to give them a free attack that is +5/+8, and if the target is still alive they have another turn to use the +5/+4--with a possible action point that pushes them to +7/+8, and I'll be able to Commander's Strike _again_ on my turn for yet another attack at +5/+8)  so my experience is clearly different than yours.

t~


----------



## Diirk (Nov 25, 2009)

Skallgrim said:


> I think (and looking at responses, I think that this is backed up by others) that it isn't a case of an "Underpowered Class".
> 
> What you instead have are some classes with many viable builds (Fighter) and others with just a few viable builds and many subpar/ineffective/situational builds (Warlock). It is hard to build an ineffective fighter (without being deliberately dumb and taking a low primary stat and failing to boost it, etc), but many people have constructed characterful, plausible Warlocks only to discover that, particularly as you advance, they lag in power behind the rest of the party.
> 
> So, if we were to redefine "Underpowered" as "having the fewest choices for powerful builds", I think Warlock would be right up there at the top.




I mostly agree with this, but the staggering amount of truly bad powers they get is incredible. The at wills (if you can trigger the extra damage for star/infernal) are better than most of the encounters! They get some nice dailies, tho.

Centering a pact around the 2 most resisted damage types in the game and not giving them anything to help with that resistance is a bit odd, too.

You can make powerful warlock builds... but this mostly involves optimising a good at will and spamming that all day. So I like the class and it doesn't have to be weak, but even when a strong warlock has... issues.


----------



## Destil (Nov 25, 2009)

Felon said:


> Let's not get too warm and fuzzy here. This is the internet. When one person proclaims something adamantly, a score of people feel compelled to rush forth and denounce it with equal resolution.
> 
> There are some pretty blatant power discrepancies in 4e. Most obvious is that any class that has to use implements is going to pack less of a punch than a class that gets to use [W] attacks, and they're not compensated in any kind of quantifiable way. Most heavily impacted by that discrepancy are strikers, since it's the most damage-centric class. That leaves warlocks and sorcerers warranting examination. Sorcerers can focus on multi-target damage than any other striker currently, so they have a niche. Warlocks are, however, among the most single-target-oriented, and their damage is sub-par. This creates a valid argument for deeming them inadequate at their role.




Strikers aren't 100% damage and nothing else. They elimiate targets, they're not DPS and this isn't WoW. Warlocks have lots of interesting abilities and can be terribly durable and slippery. Like wizard there's a bit more bleed from their secondary role, but they're still generally useful.

There's more to each class than idealized DPR numbers.

I agree entirely on weapon/impelement disparity, but warlocks can just use pact blades and weapon feats to get around it, if that's what you really care about.


----------



## Turtlejay (Nov 25, 2009)

I haven't seen every class in play, but from what I've seen and read I'd think Shaman or Warlock would be in the top five.  Too bad that *power* is only a small part of the equation, making these classes low in this area, but likely high in others.

Jay


----------



## Thanee (Nov 25, 2009)

jester_gl said:


> Personally, I think warlord is among the weakest, at least at low level (never seen on high level so I cannot say).  As a healer, they are the worst, even being surclassed by paladin in some case.  As a damage dealer they are lackluster.  The buff they gives are subpar to most other leader type buff.




Well, my experience is certainly different here.

We have a Cleric, a Paladin and a Warlord in our party (since 1st level, now almost 14th level), and while the Warlord certainly can't even get close to the healing the Cleric provides, he does decent damage (he's not a Striker or Fighter, of course) and the buffs are very powerful (that's the forte of this class), certainly much better than what the Cleric can do (WIS Cleric, I think the STR Cleric has a bit more powers here, esp. Righteous Brand, of course, but still nothing close to what the Warlord has).

I don't really have any experience with the PHB2 leaders, though, can't compare with them.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 25, 2009)

There is no most underpowered class, yet. There may be a most underpowered character, I guess. But even that would be difficult to determine, since a character that may look underpowered if examined in isolation may shine in a party with ideal synergy (which I'm not surprised to see some suggest warlords).

A (to me) more interesting exercise would be to find the most underpowered party.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2009)

Jhaelen said:


> A (to me) more interesting exercise would be to find the most underpowered party.



Eladrin Star Pact Warlock (using both ability scores of course, Con and Cha)
Halfling Archery Ranger
Dwarven Protecting Paladin (Charisma focused)
Dragonborn Tactical Warlord 
Elven Staff Wizard

All pre any power books or PHB 2 at best. 

This should provide the least synergy, I'd say. Racial choices are just there to have bad ability modifiers, you can be "fairer" if you like and make those more optimized.

None of the classes can really benefit from extra attacks granted by the Warlord. The Ranger might have the best chance since he might get off a few basic ranged attacks.


----------



## Felon (Nov 25, 2009)

Destil said:


> Strikers aren't 100% damage and nothing else. They elimiate targets, they're not DPS and this isn't WoW. Warlocks have lots of interesting abilities and can be terribly durable and slippery. Like wizard there's a bit more bleed from their secondary role, but they're still generally useful.
> 
> There's more to each class than idealized DPR numbers.



"Interesting abilities"? Let's contemplate how fruitlful it is to try to redeem a class by dint of nonspecific "interesting abilities".  Previously in this thread I mentioned past discussions of warlocks in these honored forums, and denoted that the most commonly-encountered  warlock advocate is not someone who actually claims to play a warlock. There are the warlock-watchers with their vicarious familiarity a tablemate's warlock, and then there's the other type of warlock advocate: the self-styled out-of-the-box-thinker who wants to proffer an argument about how strikers amount to more than just damage output. There's mobility and target access and target isolation and a good sense of humor that are super-significant but just happen to be too subtle for those crass, superficial folks who focus on DPS like this was WoW and not D&D. 

After all, unlike WoW, monsters in D&D don't have hit points, right? 

I think it's safe to say that the whole "this isn't WoW" line is utterly and shamelessly devoid of novelty. It's officially cemented in the realm of tired cliche. D&D may not be WoW, but like WoW it is a game where you kill monsters by divesting them of hit points, so damage output is rightly considered enormously important to a class whose role is dedicated to delivering the party's payload. Strikers may have other factors to consider, but for all practical purposes, Damage Output is the star around which mobility, target isolation, and all those other nuances revolve. Damage Output gets its own section of the newspaper between Entertainment and Sports & Leisure. Damage Output is the head of the department that gets the big corner office. 

And the reason is thus: all of those other nuances don't compete with damage output or compensate for its absence. Rather, they are its suboordinates. They are modifications to the payload. They're the vehicles that facilitate the delivery of a HP-reducing package. 

Damage is the striker's product. Doesn't matter how much you zoom out and try to take a holsitic perspective, without a prodcut you are out of business.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 25, 2009)

Felon said:


> And the reason is thus: all of those other nuances don't compete with damage output or compensate for its absence. Rather, they are its suboordinates. They are modifications to the payload. They're the vehicles that facilitate the delivery of a HP-reducing package.
> 
> Damage is the striker's product. Doesn't matter how much you zoom out and try to take a holsitic perspective, without a prodcut you are out of business.




So to extend the analogy, Damage output, the guy who only knows one programming language ,when everyone else knows 3-5, does not get the corner office. 

Damage output, the guy who doesn't have a passport, does not get to be the top seller inteh office when everyone else has international customers.

DPR is important, but if it is all that you feel is important in a character, then role-playing must be off the stove entirely in your games.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 25, 2009)

Felon;5009216D&D said:
			
		

> And the reason is thus: all of those other nuances don't compete with damage output or compensate for its absence. Rather, they are its suboordinates. They are modifications to the payload. They're the vehicles that facilitate the delivery of a HP-reducing package.




Only if the table you play at is a bastion for the tactically inept narcissist.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 25, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> So to extend the analogy, Damage output, the guy who only knows one programming language ,when everyone else knows 3-5, does not get the corner office.
> 
> Damage output, the guy who doesn't have a passport, does not get to be the top seller inteh office when everyone else has international customers.
> 
> DPR is important, but if it is all that you feel is important in a character, then role-playing must be off the stove entirely in your games.




Not necessarily. You can play a super high DPR (like a barb) and yet still have a deep immersive RP character. This gets into roll vs role play and that's not the issue being discussed. The previous poster mentioned that strikers should only be measured on their DPR, rather than mobility, status effects, etc. (not that I 100% agree with it, but then again dead is the worst status effect)


----------



## scarik (Nov 25, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> I would say that while Feylocks are hard to nail down, they just don't have the punch of other classes. Many of the 'controlerish' powers are of limited, situational use. The damage tends to lag. In order to get back on track you have to wait until Paragon, then add another pact.




Feytouched is a brutal machine of teleporting doom in mid paragon. The sad part is that a Swordmage or Hybrid is better at it than a pure Warlock is.

My problem with arock is that unlike some other classes there is no obvious way to build a good one and there are many ways to make a lackluster one.



jester_gl said:


> Personally, I think warlord is among the weakest, at least at low level (never seen on high level so I cannot say).  As a healer, they are the worst, even being surclassed by paladin in some case.  As a damage dealer they are lackluster.  The buff they gives are subpar to most other leader type buff.




Not my experience with Warlords but we only use Tactical around here because the other builds are just flat out not as potent.

Its a common issue in 4e that some builds are just much, much better than others.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 25, 2009)

A quick question to those experienced with Starlocks (none of my players have ever gone in that direction).

Do the _Dragon Magazine Annual_ enhancements in _Wish Upon A Star_ (p47-56) help fix the Starlock problems at all?

-doug


----------



## Spatula (Nov 26, 2009)

Diirk said:


> You could say that but I suspect you'd be wrong. Dual Implement makes up for iron armbands of power, and thats pretty much it. Weapon users still have plenty of other ways to boost damage that arcane users don't have. Area effect powers help implement users with this a bit, but keep in mind... its not like weapon classes have no area powers. They actually have some scarily good ones.



The Staff of Ruin makes up for Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 26, 2009)

Spatula said:


> The Staff of Ruin makes up for Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery.



I have to agree. The 12th level Wizard I built has +15 to damage while my 12th level Barbarian only has +12. I also build a 12th level Warlock that get +14 to damage. That is not including any condition damage bonuses.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2009)

scarik said:


> Feytouched is a brutal machine of teleporting doom in mid paragon. The sad part is that a Swordmage or Hybrid is better at it than a pure Warlock is.




A Long Night Scion is as much of a destroyer, with the added benefit of being able to take cold based feats to boost the damage. At mid-Paragon such a character is also capable of having an at will teleport 1, 3, 5, or 6 with which to spread all of that chilly goodness. I have to admit all of that auto damage was tempting.

Want to ruin a Feytouched's day? Blind him or stick him in magical darkness. Too much of a one trick pony.


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 26, 2009)

Spatula said:


> The Staff of Ruin makes up for Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery.




So a weapon user with bracers will get bonus damage _and_ a variety of special abilities (high crit damage, etc.), depending on the weapon. But a staff of ruin user only gets some bonus damage.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 26, 2009)

lukelightning said:


> So a weapon user with bracers will get bonus damage _and_ a variety of special abilities (high crit damage, etc.), depending on the weapon. But a staff of ruin user only gets some bonus damage.



The staff of Ruin is not necessary to meet or exceed the damage bonus of a weapon user who has IAoP.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 26, 2009)

surfarcher said:


> A quick question to those experienced with Starlocks (none of my players have ever gone in that direction).
> 
> Do the _Dragon Magazine Annual_ enhancements in _Wish Upon A Star_ (p47-56) help fix the Starlock problems at all?
> 
> -doug




Are you guys ignoring me? *sniff*


----------



## Saagael (Nov 26, 2009)

surfarcher said:


> A quick question to those experienced with Starlocks (none of my players have ever gone in that direction).
> 
> Do the _Dragon Magazine Annual_ enhancements in _Wish Upon A Star_ (p47-56) help fix the Starlock problems at all?




I've played starlock from level 1 to not level 10 (almost 11). Unfortunately, my DM doesn't allow any magazine rules in our game, even though a lot of the magazine stuff would make my character much more viable.

I can only answer your question by saying that I feel that the dragon magazine does add extra options that I wish I could use (but sadly, can't). On that same note, I'm going to add my vote that a star-lock is one of the hardest classes to build effectively. Their controller aspect is great, and if I could play a pure controller I'm sure I'd be happy. I'm forced to be a striker through party make-up, and consistently struggling to do any sort of decent damage. Of course, it might be that my DM never lets my Dire Radiance secondary trigger, which seriously gimps damage.

As a warlock player, the only thing that I really like about playing a warlock is having a second warlock on the party (a feylock who takes all the controller powers) and both of us having the Coordinated Curse feat. The feat gives a warlock combat advantage while the enemy is cursed by two warlocks. Because of that, I nearly always have CA against the target (makes up for always having to target fortitude).

That's just my experience though: it's fun to play a slightly evil madman, but no amount of interesting role-play (at least for me) makes up for my constant struggle during combats.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 26, 2009)

Interesting.

Does your DM allow the use of other official supplements (like Arcane Power)?  I also don't normally allow magazine entries into my games but I am willing to consider _Dragon Magazine Annual_ an official supplement simply based on it's official look and feel, hardcopy distribution and WotC backing.

I really like the look and feel of the Starlock's baground and the ideas in the DMA.  It'd be a shame if that doesn't provide some kind of working and (pseudo-)official fix to the classe's problems.

Mind you player's haven't shown any interest in it yet but you never know...

-doug


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2009)

surfarcher said:


> A quick question to those experienced with Starlocks (none of my players have ever gone in that direction).
> 
> Do the _Dragon Magazine Annual_ enhancements in _Wish Upon A Star_ (p47-56) help fix the Starlock problems at all?
> 
> -doug




A couple of the powers are good enough that I took them for my Feylock. One is INT+2 to hit, which synergizes very well with my character's upside-down build.

The magazine powers and feats add some much needed CHA-based powers.


----------



## Destil (Nov 26, 2009)

Felon said:


> I think it's safe to say that the whole "this isn't WoW" line is utterly and shamelessly devoid of novelty. It's officially cemented in the realm of tired cliche. D&D may not be WoW, but like WoW it is a game where you kill monsters by divesting them of hit points, so damage output is rightly considered enormously important to a class whose role is dedicated to delivering the party's payload.




Actually, it's 'not like WoW' for a number of fairly technical reasons, and I mean that as an assessment of the combat mechanics on a whole of both games, rather than a snide side-jab. WoW's combat is quite different than 4E and at the end of the day in large raid situations at max level (which is the only thing the game is balanced for, aside from a nod towards arena PvP) almost every DPS member of your raid is pretty easy to qualify by the little bar that shows you how much damage they do.

There are fights that require more from your damage guys than being awake at the wheel and reacting to gimmicks, but with groups as huge as a WoW raid (10 or 25 people currently) it's not really an issue, someone in the raid will generally have the ability to deal with things like dispels. The limited stacking mechanics mean that most buff/debuff 'slots' can be filled by any of 2-3 classes.

With a few hours of parsed log data I can pretty easily tell a breakdown of a raid's DPS members and with real world data it's not generally much more than 'bigger number is better.' Especially as coming in at high DPS generally means that a raid member understands the mechanics of a fights and basics like maneuvering and positioning well, since doing poorly with gimmicks will generally result in lower DPS (more time spent moving into/out of safe areas, more time spent with a fight-changing damage buff, poor aggro management requiring you to burn cooldowns on defensive abilities or just spending time dead et cetera). Tanks need a lot of skill and ability to control a fight, healers need good instincts and reflexes to balance mana vs cooldowns vs throughput vs risk (though like DPS raid/area healers are pretty easy to judge with total healing numbers, especially effective heal, though there are cross healing concerns that DPS ratings don't share), but DPS you can almost always rate by number with good accuracy.



Now, D&D, on the other hand, offers players a much smaller group. There's still some load balancing, but it's not on the same level when you need to fill 11 buff slots with 25 people from 9 classes. Parties will have strengths and weakness, and they will be far more pronounced than looking at two raid groups. Things like target selection, slipperiness, resilience and whatnot are much more common.

In WoW if your non-tanks take two hits they die; maybe one on a crit, which is around a 25% chance. Non-tank damage is usually a sign of something very wrong, or intended to be hitting non-tanks (and thus designed to be survived by them). In D&D it's a lot more common. You tend to deal with more opponents at once, and your tanks don't get a free ride just because they can pump out threat numbers. Positioning and similar things matter a lot.



So what's the warlock got going for him?

Pact Boons, which can be pretty sweet. Feypact warlocks are terribly hard to ever pin down in a real combat; infernal warlocks are actually pretty resistant to damage between high con and the free temp HP; starlocks get a nice boost to whatever they want next turn. (I haven't had any experience with Vestiage or Dark warlocks, myself). They're also right there next to the sorcerer as one of the strikers most happy to see minions in a fight.

Decent options for Fort/Reflex/Will selection. Not as versatile as as a wizard, but better than most other strikers and some controllers. Using these well can have a strong effect on accuracy, in a way idealized DPR vs. 15+level defense spreadsheets don't show. Infernal warlocks miss out a bit here (both their at-wills hit ref).

Shadow Walk. This is a fantastic power, it's pretty much an always-on +2 to defenses for non-area attacks. Granted starlocks who do an even split are screwed on AC; but it's more of a flawed build option rather than an underpowered class.

Respectable single target damage. Some builds (those that fall closer to controllers) may get out damaged by a damage inclined member of another class (fighters, I'm looking at you). They also tend to have better area damage or screw the enemy over options, however.

Interesting options. There's a lot of appealing curse-related feats and items.

In actual play I've seen some very successful warlocks who contribute to combat in useful ways. The class isn't in the upper half of the power curve, but they're not so far below that I'd call them underpowered. If anything the starlock is an underpowered build, since they have some flaws in defenses and their pact boon isn't that great, their feat and paragon path support are both rather strong but primarily from Dragon. But that's the build, not the class.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2009)

A pretty good analysis.

As to the Darklock they are as damage oriented a build as the Infernalock, but CHA based. Perhaps moreso. Also Darkspiral Aura, as a pact boon, both debuffs incoming damage and damages the attacker. They also have two huge, close blast 20 potential minion clearing encounter powers, one of which comes in at Level 1. They, of all the Warlock builds, make excellent use of the Rod of Corruption.


----------



## Felon (Nov 26, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> So to extend the analogy, Damage output, the guy who only knows one programming language ,when everyone else knows 3-5, does not get the corner office.
> 
> Damage output, the guy who doesn't have a passport, does not get to be the top seller inteh office when everyone else has international customers.
> 
> DPR is important, but if it is all that you feel is important in a character, then role-playing must be off the stove entirely in your games.



You are still thinking in terms of competing with damage, which makes for a an inaccurate extension of the analogy. Without Damage Output, the programmers don't have a product to program and the sellers don't have anything to sell. 

As to role-playing....How does that come into play in a discussion of underpowered classes? The reason I stuck with my warlock for all of that time is that I enjoyed role-playing the character. But eventually, the limitations of the class design, including damage output, grew too unsatisfying.


----------



## Felon (Nov 26, 2009)

Destil said:


> Actually, it's 'not like WoW' for a number of fairly technical reasons, and I mean that as an assessment of the combat mechanics on a whole of both games, rather than a snide side-jab.



OK, fair enough. Moving along....



> So what's the warlock got going for him?
> 
> Pact Boons, which can be pretty sweet. Feypact warlocks are terribly hard to ever pin down in a real combat; infernal warlocks are actually pretty resistant to damage between high con and the free temp HP; starlocks get a nice boost to whatever they want next turn. (I haven't had any experience with Vestiage or Dark warlocks, myself). They're also right there next to the sorcerer as one of the strikers most happy to see minions in a fight.
> 
> ...



I've played the class, having a generous (or perhaps merely indifferent) DM who let me respec between sessions. I tried starlocks and hellocks. I alternated between the highest-damage powers and the highest-control powers. They weren't unplayable. Like that line in The 300..."They did their part". But they weren't Spartans, that was clear. They didn't excel at anything with any consistency, and they rarely seemed to be doing the job of striking. 

The pact boons are a big plate of YMMV. The requirement that something has to die makes them rather inconsistent from encounter to encounter, or even campaign to campaign. The darkspiral pact provides a set of mechanics that can actually aid a striker, but the others not so much. 

Extolling shadow walk as fantastic is something of a gaffe. This is just a patch for an otherwise low defense set, like Barbarian Agility. Add it in, and a warlock's defenses come out fair compared to other classes. It helps all four defenses, which is nice, but considering that area and close attacks ignore its benefits altogether, I'd call that something of a push. 

The single-target damage is patently unimpressive if there's someone around with a mordenkrad, fullblade, greatbow, and son. And that someone doesn't even have to be a striker to outpace the warlock. Regarding area options, warlocks are pretty low on these until dailies start getting burned.

Regarding "a lot of appealing curse-related feats and items".....well, you could say this for just about any class. Other classes have feats and magic items, so warlocks don't catch up to other classes simply because they have them to.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 26, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> Want to ruin a Feytouched's day? Blind him or stick him in magical darkness. Too much of a one trick pony.



Which class performs well in this scenario?


----------



## FireLance (Nov 26, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Which class performs well in this scenario?



Characters with plenty of Close and Area attacks. This tends to mean controllers.


----------



## amusingsn (Nov 26, 2009)

surfarcher said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Does your DM allow the use of other official supplements (like Arcane Power)?  I also don't normally allow magazine entries into my games but I am willing to consider _Dragon Magazine Annual_ an official supplement simply based on it's official look and feel, hardcopy distribution and WotC backing.
> 
> ...




I think the problem with the DM is that he's an old man who can barely keep track of what day it is, never mind keeping up with a dozen or more dragon magazines in addition to the "official" core rules books.  I know for a fact that since he really likes Saagael's player, he should probably make an exception for the Star Pact stuff from the dragon magazine.

But truth be told, the player in question is heads and shoulders above the rest of the group, mechanics-wise, so the character in question performs above average for the party.  That makes it easy for the DM in question.

On topic with the main issue of the thread -- 

It's been suggested the rogues are the weakest class.  I've seen rogues played in all three tiers and I have to say they are pretty consistently balanced.  They have good damage output -- a combination of a high hit bonus (and many weapon attacks that target NADs) and a large strike-class-damage-bonus-dice pool.  The downside, as has been suggested, is their squishiness.  They don't have particularly good defenses, and as a melee striker class, they tend to be tempting targets when the opportunity arises.  It's a give and take.

It's been suggested that warlocks are the weakest class.   As strikers go, I have to agree that their damage potential leaves a lot to be desired.  And of course the whole "two-primary-stat" deal with the Star Pact warlocks is a bum deal, to be sure.  I have played an Infernal Pact warlock from level 1 to 28 thus far, so I feel like I can speak with authority when I say that any downside to my damage potential (my at-wills do less damage than the fighter's) is more than made up for my survivability and versatility (we joke at the table that we'll never have a TPK because my character can beat most of the encounters we engage in single-handedly, given enough time).

It's been suggested that warlords are the weakest class.  My warlock's party has a level 28 tactical warlord, and I have to say, the amount of bonuses he grants the party is absurd.  A ludicrous +7 bonus to hit whenever we spend an action point for an extra attack, a bonus to hit when *he* spends an action point, for everyone.   I would have to say that, tactical warlords, at least, are not underpowered at any tier of play, and especially not in the epic tier when their bonuses scale off the charts.

As for classes that might stand *above* the rest, I'd have to say that Fighters seem to be easy to do very well.  They can dish out good damage, are very survivable, have several abilities to control multiple targets (come and get it, level 7 encounter, omg -- don't train out of this one, folks), and their mark is ludicrously sticky.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2009)

FireLance said:


> Characters with plenty of Close and Area attacks. This tends to mean controllers.




Or characters who have a lot of shifting abilities.


----------



## surfarcher (Nov 26, 2009)

amusingsn said:


> I think the problem with the DM is that he's an old man who can barely keep track of what day it is, never mind keeping up with a dozen or more dragon magazines in addition to the "official" core rules books.  I know for a fact that since he really likes Saagael's player, he should probably make an exception for the Star Pact stuff from the dragon magazine.
> 
> But truth be told, the player in question is heads and shoulders above the rest of the group, mechanics-wise, so the character in question performs above average for the party.  That makes it easy for the DM in question.




Well this old man has the same problem. I can keep track of all those damned hardback supplements if I stretch myself.  But I draw the line at adding a stack of magazines to the equation. OK, OK. My *old worn out brain* draws the line.  Naturally I reserve the right to cherry pick anything from them that I can use as a DM   And perhaps if a player made a _really_ good case for something in a mag I might make an exception.  But as a rule...

Consider the DMA me trying meet players in the middle for the sake of a broken build that badly needs fixing. Not that any of mine have ever used it... Yet.

-doug
(PS. Nice to meet Saagael's DM  )


----------



## Saagael (Nov 26, 2009)

surfarcher said:


> (PS. Nice to meet Saagael's DM  )




Well don't I feel silly now. >.>


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Nov 27, 2009)

surfarcher said:


> A quick question to those experienced with Starlocks (none of my players have ever gone in that direction).
> 
> Do the _Dragon Magazine Annual_ enhancements in _Wish Upon A Star_ (p47-56) help fix the Starlock problems at all?
> 
> -doug




I had a long post, but the forums ate it.  Instead of typing it all out again, I'll simply say Sacrifice to Caiphon is the second (or third) most important Star Lock feat IMHO.  Student of Caiphon is a great paragon path as well.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 27, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> Want to ruin a Feytouched's day? Blind him or stick him in magical darkness. Too much of a one trick pony.







Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Which class performs well in this scenario?




Helen Keller with a Mordenkrad for the win!


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Helen Keller with a Mordenkrad for the win!




Helen Keller with a Mordenkrad would make mincemeat out of my Feylock since mobility via teleport is my big schtick and my two best encounter attacks, Cursebite and Cursegrind, require having cursed (which means SEE) the opponents.


----------



## Mentat55 (Nov 27, 2009)

Hmm, this sounds a job for a few grimlocks and a black or shadow dragon.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2009)

Mentat55 said:


> Hmm, this sounds a job for a few grimlocks and a black or shadow dragon.




Which is why I'm seriously considering the Grimlock Helm.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 28, 2009)

scarik said:


> Its a common issue in 4e that some builds are just much, much better than others.



Feature, not bug. All things can't be equal or they would be just the same. 



Mr. Wilson said:


> I had a long post, but the forums ate it.  Instead of typing it all out again, I'll simply say Sacrifice to Caiphon is the second (or third) most important Star Lock feat IMHO.  Student of Caiphon is a great paragon path as well.



Slightly abusable. Perhaps too much for certain classes (hello sorcerers!)


----------



## mageta80 (Nov 29, 2009)

nothing


----------



## Felon (Nov 30, 2009)

Spatula said:


> The Staff of Ruin makes up for Iron Armbands / Bracers of Archery.





abyssaldeath said:


> The staff of Ruin is not necessary to meet or exceed the damage bonus of a weapon user who has IAoP.



So, what "makes up" for the benefits the weapon-user is getting out of his weapon while the implement-user is using the Staff of Ruin to play catch-up with Iron Armbands and Bracers of Archery? 



lukelightning said:


> So a weapon user with bracers will get bonus damage _and_ a variety of special abilities (high crit damage, etc.), depending on the weapon. But a staff of ruin user only gets some bonus damage.



Seems like the inescapable gravity of logic here.



abyssaldeath said:


> The staff of Ruin is not necessary to meet or exceed the damage bonus of a weapon user who has IAoP.



Is this response to the logical fallacy presented to you as vague and equivocal as it sounds?


----------



## abyssaldeath (Nov 30, 2009)

Felon said:


> So, what "makes up" for the benefits the weapon-user is getting out of his weapon while the implement-user is using the Staff of Ruin to play catch-up with Iron Armbands and Bracers of Archery?
> 
> Is this response to the logical fallacy presented to you as vague and equivocal as it sounds?



I'm going to use a couple of 12 level characters I have made as examples and will only be comparing At-Wills.



> *12th lvl Human Wizard*
> FINAL ABILITY SCORES
> Str 11, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 22, Wis 16, Cha 9.
> 
> ...




So there we have 2 out of 3 Arcane spell casters that have a higher static bonus to damage then a melee striker without the use of a Staff of Ruin.


----------



## Spatula (Dec 1, 2009)

Felon said:


> So, what "makes up" for the benefits the weapon-user is getting out of his weapon while the implement-user is using the Staff of Ruin to play catch-up with Iron Armbands and Bracers of Archery?



Dual Implement Spellcaster, as mentioned back on page 2.


----------



## holywhitetrash (Dec 3, 2009)

in my opinion warlords are the most underpowered  i mean they seem to be able to put out damage but their job is to be the leader and their healing is subpar and all of their powers proc off of ac 
the only time i have seen someone play a warlord they hated it


----------



## Turtlejay (Dec 3, 2009)

Leader=!Healing

Leader=Support

Healing is one aspect of support.  Buffing and battlefield control is another.  While Warlords make subpar healers, they make good leaders in other aspects.

This naturally means that they are not cut out for some playstyles.  If you go into it thinking you are playing a healbot, or a lazerbeamer, you will be disappointed.  You are a weak fighter with support elements.

Jay


----------



## abyssaldeath (Dec 3, 2009)

Warlords excel at making the rest of the party awesome by handing out extra attacks, hit and damage bonuses out the wazoo.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 3, 2009)

I'm not sure if they're necesarily sub-par healers, but they aren't as great as clerics (but there's that feat lets you add Int bonus to inspiring word to make up some of the difference). There's no other leader I'd like to adventure with in my group than a Taclord...so sure in a straight-up fight he's not as powerful as a fighter or barbarian, but his/her job is to make the others better and lets the heavy hitters take extra attacks


----------



## Destil (Dec 4, 2009)

Depends on your warlord. Inspiring warlords have really good access to encounter heals, maybe better than a cleric (haven't compared the two post Martial/Divine power) and excel at granting saves. They don't heal as much damage overall, but it's easier to make one with a good number of encounter triggers. Also their encounter healing powers tend to have better non-healing aspects, especially damage. 

Tactical warlords excel at granting attacks and bonuses.

Either one will generally deal good damage, better than most healing-focused clerics. A strength cleric can close most of the difference, but they would do it by dedicating feats and powers to damage rather than healing, and end up about in the same spot.

In fact I believe warlords are still near the top as far as damage dealing leaders, though I haven't really done a careful comparison since the PHB came out.

Also, don't just compare them to clerics. If anything clerics are like fighters, clearly one of the favorites and very possibly overpowered, particularly if you just look at healing.


----------



## keterys (Dec 4, 2009)

Inspiring Warlords can actually give some extremely good damage boosts, with Warlord's Strike, War of Attrition, Inspired Belligerence, etc. Tactical is much better at giving bonuses to hit, though.


----------



## cattoy (Dec 4, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> I'm going to use a couple of 12 level characters I have made as examples and will only be comparing At-Wills.
> 
> 
> 
> So there we have 2 out of 3 Arcane spell casters that have a higher static bonus to damage then a melee striker without the use of a Staff of Ruin.




Wrong. Or rather, who cares about static bonus when the weapon and maneuver bonus overshadows it?

Wizard = 19.5
Barbarian (only one with a mere 20 in primary stat BTW) 25.5
Sorcerer = 24.5
Warlock = 26.5

A goliath Barbarian equipped with a brutal weapon tops out at 27 or higher, depending on what kind it is.


----------



## Destil (Dec 4, 2009)

Wow, I just looked over inspiring warlord feats. They're fantastic at granting little bits of healing and saves. The cleric may have more focused heals, but really for overall healing if your party is 5 or more people the inspiring warlord should remain pretty competitive. And they throw out saves like candy.

Saving Inspiration - Forgo extra dice of healing from Inspiring Word for a save.

Inspired Recovery - When an ally spends an action point they get a save, and add your Cha bonus to the roll.

Yeah, if you build around it and don't have a small party an inspiring warlord will keep up with a cleric just fine. May not heal your defender up with one inspiring word, but the fighter can spend an action point (which you should generally be doing every other encounter anyway) and get some extra healing and a save whenever they need it. And while the cleric has to weaken himself for one turn to heal the entire group the warlord just lets everyone take an action point, put out the hurt, and takes another swing with his +3, 1d12 sword or whatever.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Dec 4, 2009)

cattoy said:


> Wrong. Or rather, who cares about static bonus when the weapon and maneuver bonus overshadows it?
> 
> Wizard = 19.5
> Barbarian (only one with a mere 20 in primary stat BTW) 25.5
> ...




Considering that were were arguing about whether or not casters were less effective because they can't use IAoP or BoA and not about DPR, I'd say static bonuses are relevant to the post.


----------



## Diirk (Dec 4, 2009)

abyssaldeath said:


> Considering that were were arguing about whether or not casters were less effective because they can't use IAoP or BoA and not about DPR, I'd say static bonuses are relevant to the post.




Possibly, but thats a really, really bad barbarian.


----------



## lukelightning (Dec 4, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Dual Implement Spellcaster, as mentioned back on page 2.




Feats are a valuable resource. So are the ability score points for the prereq for DIS. So you end  up spending a feat and investing in DEX _and_ investing in a secondary magical implement.


----------



## Turtlejay (Dec 4, 2009)

Exactly.  So weapon users sacrifice the arms slot.

Implement users sacrifice the off hand slot, at least 13 Dex, and a feat.  And the bonus is still not as good, and more expensive.  The bone thrown is that the off hand slot can also have another property on it, but there you have a cost/benefit thing going on.  Is it better to just get the lowest possible enchantment, the +2 Magic Wand or whatever, or to spend more for a property?  Weapon users slap on their bracers in the morning and don't have to think about it the rest of the day.

Jay


----------



## Felon (Dec 7, 2009)

holywhitetrash said:


> in my opinion warlords are the most underpowered  i mean they seem to be able to put out damage but their job is to be the leader and their healing is subpar and all of their powers proc off of ac
> the only time i have seen someone play a warlord they hated it



OK, that outlook is so strikingly wrong that it's sufficient to take me off the warlock tangent, at least for a minute, so I can pontificate about one of my other pet paradigms. 

The notion that healing is the most important asset a leader has is a very newbish kind of misconception. Healing is something every leader should have in moderation, but no leader should have in excess. The creed that "if a little is good, a lot is even beter" does not apply here, because all healing does is put you back on the starting line. It doesn't move you an inch farther forward to the finish line, therefore you only need healing in proportion to the amount of damage received. And if your party is consistently taking extreme amounts of damage in battle, you have a problem that is not going to be fixed simply by tossing extreme amounts of healing at it. 

When my group started playing 4e, nobody touched the warlord. Everyone played clerics. And I constantly heard griping about how long combats took. 4e was blamed for the extreme grindyness. But the real problem was that our leaders thought that whenever a good healing power was available, that was the hands-down choice for them to take. Oh how wonderful it was that we could just keep taking punishment forever, bloodied and beaten one second and then back to full the next. All praise the cleric, master of healing. But the problem was, we couldn't crush our enemies through superior offense, so we whittled them away through the long slog of gradual attrition. It was rope-a-dope.

Finally, I got a chance to play a leader and I embraced it. I rolled up a bard, not a warlord, but the principal was the same: first and foremost, give out offensive buffs--bonus attacks, attack roll bonuses/rerolls, and damage roll bonuses/rerolls--to make sure attacks hit and do lots of damage. The secondary priority is to give out defensive buffs like AC bonuses and temp HP that are, essentially, pre-emptive healing. For healing of the purely reactive variety, majestic word is all they get during the battle. They can burn surges with the benefit of my restful song after the fight's over. 

I don't think the gang could be more happy. Even the DM prefers this approach to leaders. Nobody likes a slog.

When we get those threads abuot the grind of 4e combat, most folks start analyzing the party makeup and fingering the striker as the make-it-or-break it role. Personally, I think a good leader turns everyone into a bit of a striker.


----------



## Eric888 (Dec 8, 2009)

Felon has been 100% right on everything so far, most especially that anyone who claims a warlock's damage deficiency is made up for by his control elements has clearly never played one.

Cursebite and cursegrind seem like great powers until you realize that they deal necrotic damage and target fortitude. And sure their powers have some nice riders, but so does every other class in the game.

The problem with warlocks is that they have the worst of both worlds. Weapon classes have great damage bonuses (superior weapons, iron armbands, etc.) Spellcasters, on the other hand, make up for that loss by having far more area and close attacks. Warlocks have neither. They are a spellcaster class without the whole benefit that other spellcasters have. That is why they are the most underpowered.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 8, 2009)

Don't forget about the no choice of at-wills for a warlock (well up until november update) you get your pact power and eldritch blast. They've now given the option of eldritch strike, but still there's little to no choice for non-humans.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 8, 2009)

Yes, Cursebite and Cursegrind are nice but, as you say, they target FORT. I capped off both on a dozen opponents in our last session and hit 3 with the first, then 4 with the second. The oppositions' FORT scores were higher than their ACs, but obviously my CHA based attacks weren't equal to a weapon strike.

And that's my best combo.


----------



## Felon (Dec 8, 2009)

Eric888 said:


> Felon has been 100% right on everything so far



You know, I am bewildered at how infrequently I hear people say that. 



> The problem with warlocks is that they have the worst of both worlds. Weapon classes have great damage bonuses (superior weapons, iron armbands, etc.) Spellcasters, on the other hand, make up for that loss by having far more area and close attacks. Warlocks have neither. They are a spellcaster class without the whole benefit that other spellcasters have. That is why they are the most underpowered.




True. In general, they just don't have enough going for them. 

Personally, I would like to see summoning added to their portfolio. That would compliment their almost total focus on ranged striking.


----------



## Eric888 (Dec 8, 2009)

Yeah, summoning would be a great new angle, and makes a lot of sense since they, you know, actually trafic with otherwordly powers. Unfortunately the "D&D has become WoW!" crowd might be keeping the summoning warlock from seeing the light of day.

I just hope that after tommorow's warlock article this thread becomes outdated. Of course I thought I would be saying that about Arcane Power and we got almost nothing, so I am prepared for disapointment.


----------



## Felon (Dec 8, 2009)

Eric888 said:


> I just hope that after tommorow's warlock article this thread becomes outdated. Of course I thought I would be saying that about Arcane Power and we got almost nothing, so I am prepared for disapointment.



My group doesn't use Dragon Mag content, so I'll still be bearing the torch at least until PHB3.


----------



## Eric888 (Dec 9, 2009)

It's okay. The article is out and there wasn't much to show. There is a feat that lets you teleport monsters instead of doing your curse damage, but everything else was fairly lackluster.

The conversation can go on. I was right. Nothing has changed.


----------



## rayous (Dec 9, 2009)

Eric888 said:


> It's okay. The article is out and there wasn't much to show. There is a feat that lets you teleport monsters instead of doing your curse damage, but everything else was fairly lackluster.
> 
> The conversation can go on. I was right. Nothing has changed.




Ignore me, i miss-read


----------



## keterys (Dec 9, 2009)

I dunno, I think being able to make an enemy attack another enemy every round is pretty major. Especially if you group with a defender of any kind other than shielding swordmage.

That said, it gave them more controller bits than striker bits. Leaving zones of damage around, teleporting enemies, sorta dominating them, spreading damage to other nearby ones, etc.

And if your DM is silly the teleport one allows you to do falling damage, prone, zones, etc.


----------



## rayous (Dec 9, 2009)

If your gm allows teleports to teleport up, you will always do more damage using flitting shadows. At paragon your doing 2d6 curse damage, or 6 teleport up which does 3d10 +prone if they dont have acrobatics trained/fly speed.


----------



## rayous (Dec 9, 2009)

Also...

Beguiling Curse
Prerequisite: 11th level, warlock
Benefit: Whenever you hit an enemy under your
Warlock’s Curse with a warlock power, you can forgo
dealing curse damage to instead compel the target to
make a melee basic attack against an adjacent creature
you choose.

Do you have to be able to deal curse damage in order to use this? Cause the arguement can be made that you hit a couple of people cursed by you and go "nope, no extra damage for you, hit him instead" for each person hit.

"You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. You can deal this extra damage once per round, so if you have dealt Warlock’s Curse damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn."


----------



## keterys (Dec 9, 2009)

I imagine most DMs would rule that you have to, in fact, have something to forgo, in order to make it work. But, who knows?

And yeah, 2d6 -> 3d10 falling is +9.5 damage for most creatures, even ignoring zones and such.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 9, 2009)

Not a lot there for CHAlocks, who arguably need the most help.



rayous said:


> Also...
> 
> Beguiling Curse
> Prerequisite: 11th level, warlock
> ...




You can do your Warlock's Curse damage once per round. If you forgo this, then you can use the stated effect. This implies that this can only be performed once per round (unless feats, etc. allow you multiple uses of Curse per round). If you could use it on another creature, then you have sacrificed (forgone) nothing to obtain the effect.


----------



## rayous (Dec 9, 2009)

From Martial Power:

Ankle Cutter

Heroic Tier
Prerequisite: Halfling, rogue, Sneak Attack class feature
Benefit: When you hit a Large or larger enemy and would deal Sneak Attack damage against that target, you can forgo rolling Sneak Attack damage and instead cause the target to be slowed until the end of your next turn.* Using this option counts as using Sneak Attack for the round.*

Currently beguiling curse does not have that last line which is necessary to make it once per round.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 9, 2009)

rayous said:


> From Martial Power:
> 
> Ankle Cutter
> 
> ...




Are there feats or powers that let you apply Sneak Attack multiple times in one round? There are for Warlock's Curse.


----------



## rayous (Dec 9, 2009)

um....slaying action from martial power...just like warlocks dooming action from arcane power.
Rangers have one too, predatory action.


----------



## rayous (Dec 9, 2009)

Remember, they errata stuff for the compiled, maybe it will have "Using this option counts as using curse damage for the round." in the final issue. But currently it doesn't.


----------



## keterys (Dec 9, 2009)

rayous said:


> From Martial Power:
> 
> Ankle Cutter
> 
> ...




The presence of text does not imply a general ruling. It is entirely possible, for instance, that if you removed your bolded line that Ankle Cutter would continue to work exactly the same way. It would just potentially be less clear.

For example, the avenger article gives avengers an opportunity attack when an enemy moves adjacent and explicitly says it doesn't apply when forced movement or teleporting, but the general rules for forced movement and teleport _already prevent opportunity actions_. The Storm Shield does lightning and thunder damage when someone hits it, and notes only those with resistance to both resist that, even though that also is the general rule. Etc.


----------



## rayous (Dec 9, 2009)

and the general rule for curse is you can only deal the bonus damage once a turn, not that you cant curse. Its just that using curse for no extra damage doesnt do anything. And the reason they need the clarifying sentence is your not dealing the bonus damage. 

Curse does not say "once per turn when you attack you can choose to deal extra damage". It says "f you hit a cursed enemy with an attack, you deal extra damage. You decide whether to apply the extra damage after making the damage roll. You can deal this extra damage once per round, so if you have dealt Warlock’s Curse damage since the start of your turn, you cannot deal it again until the start of your next turn." 

So each person cursed that you hit triggers your warlock curse, you then have to say i forgo damage till you get to the one you do want to deal extra curse damage to. Beguiling curse currently allows you to say i forgo damage, but lets have that guy hit his friend anyway.

Im pretty sure they will fix it in the compiled version.


----------



## keterys (Dec 9, 2009)

Definitely agree that it is better to write it in such a way that people do not attempt to misuse it, regardless of any other logical correctness.


----------



## Felon (Dec 10, 2009)

Eric888 said:


> It's okay. The article is out and there wasn't much to show. There is a feat that lets you teleport monsters instead of doing your curse damage, but everything else was fairly lackluster.
> 
> The conversation can go on. I was right. Nothing has changed.



Honestly, as much I would love to see the warlock fixed, I really would prefer not to see major changes to the playing field come out of little Dragon Mag articles (q.v. Sacrifice to Caphion).


----------



## rayous (Dec 10, 2009)

Honestly i want it fixed because i have people still arguing that Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation allows them to use the orb of imposition feature as they cast it to do a burst 3 enemies only 1d6+int +prone.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 10, 2009)

Felon said:


> Honestly, as much I would love to see the warlock fixed, I really would prefer not to see major changes to the playing field come out of little Dragon Mag articles (q.v. Sacrifice to Caphion).




Maybe AP 2? PHB3 likely will focus mostly on the new classes.


----------



## Eric888 (Dec 11, 2009)

renau1g said:


> Maybe AP 2? PHB3 likely will focus mostly on the new classes.




I don't know, PH2 fixed how awful half-elves were even though half-elves were a PH1 race. When there is a balance problem they usually try to fix it in a core book so it reaches the casuals who don't go online. It is reasonable to hope that PH3 will try to fix warlocks.


----------



## renau1g (Dec 11, 2009)

Eric888 said:


> I don't know, PH2 fixed how awful half-elves were even though half-elves were a PH1 race. When there is a balance problem they usually try to fix it in a core book so it reaches the casuals who don't go online. It is reasonable to hope that PH3 will try to fix warlocks.




Like all the errata they just released


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 11, 2009)

renau1g said:


> Like all the errata they just released




... that likely resulted in 20% of players doing character rewrites


----------



## Turtlejay (Dec 11, 2009)

Eric888 said:


> I don't know, PH2 fixed how awful half-elves were even though half-elves were a PH1 race. When there is a balance problem they usually try to fix it in a core book so it reaches the casuals who don't go online. It is reasonable to hope that PH3 will try to fix warlocks.




Firstly, Half Elves were not awful pre PHB2.

Secondly, PHB2 introduced Racial Paragon Paths, but Half Elves did not get one.  Instead, they got a rad feat.

Jay


----------

