The Warlock from Complete Arcane

[Caylin]

I started a warlock in the game I joined recently, and like her a lot so far. What is the verdict on the board of the class? Did I pick a gimpy one?

[Borogove]

The impression I got was that the warlock was a fun class to play, but it could get kind of repetitive, and eventually begins to fall behind in terms of ability to contribute meaningfully in fights - specifically, eldritch blast damage scales poorly, and the warlock is somewhat lacking in other tricks, besides magic item use (which should probably be focused on at high levels).

[The Formless One]

My impression from reading and playing around with them conceptually is that they're arcane-based archers with a neat but extremely limited spell-list who happens to be stupidly good with Use Magic Device.

If in a game where they can properly apply their Use Magic Device, I think they bring plenty to the table. In a game where magic items are stingy, less so.

They also look like they will shine most in games that feature multiple encounters per day over one short one. Traditional arcane casters will make them pale in comparison in a single battle but their endurance really helps them last.

I imagine a Warlock would fit best with a group that features several other endurance oriented characters. Some combination of Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade from the Tome of Battle would go well with them, as would a Rogue or Scout (no per-day limits) backed up with the right gear (Healing Belts + Wand of Lesser Vigor etc) and a well-built Cleric or Healer for emergency healing (both the Touch of Healing and Augment Healing feats are mandatory) you could probably have a party that can go through a dungeon that would take a regular four-person party several attempts in a single run.

So yeah, you're reasonably solid under most conditions and rule under appropriate conditions. :)

[Lord Minx]

It's also an awesome Gestalt class for those of us who like to design "Naked in the desert and I could still kill you" kinda characters. :D

A pure Warlock would get boring unless you really concentrate on those magic items (And the GM lets you), but as the spice on some other character? Nice... :D

M

[Juriel]

Make a Repelling Chain Hideous Blow-based Warlock. His 'hurricane slash' school of swordsmanship allows him to hit one guy so hard all his buddies get tossed against the wall, too. :p

Okay, darn, Hideous Blow is a blast shape too, so that isn't actually valid. There went my desired way to play a Warlock...

[Omegatron]

Warlock is a god in Gestalt Campaigns

Double up with an unarmed-oriented Warblade for DBZ fun and profit.

[Killed]

Warlocks can be super useful in social situations, since you should already have a high charisma and on of your first magical abilities gives a +6 to basically all the social skills IIRC.

I don't know what setting you're in, but wands are your friend and will make you beloved among your party if you keep stocked with wands of cure _____ wounds as appropriate for the level of your party.

[The Formless One]

I don't know what setting you're in, but wands are your friend and will make you beloved among your party if you keep stocked with wands of cure _____ wounds as appropriate for the level of your party.
Real Warlocks use Vigor wands. ;)

[help im a bug]

Combine Darkness and Devil's Sight to become a 20-foot radius ball of lightless death.

Add rogue levels for maximum hilarity.

[Jon Chung]

Eldritch Glaive.

[Johnnie Price]

Eldritch Glaive.
I always thought that blast shape would work great for a Warlock/Hexblade build.

[Mostlyjoe]

Then there is the classical Invis/Flying Warlock who is the autofire specialist.

[buggritall]

Then there is the classical Invis/Flying Warlock who is the autofire specialist.

Yeah, I'm pretty much playing this guy in my campaign. The Extra Invocation feat lets you get both as soon as you hit level 6.

I think a lot of the new classes are a way to try and make casters that are more on par with the fighty classes, instead of being extremely powerful, like the cleric and druid.

[Lord Minx]

Doesn't Extra Invocation only give you an invocation of one level lower then our current max? (Might be missremembering.)

[hackmastergeneral]

Warlocks are fun, and while their damage doesn't scale to high levels, there are very few fights where the Warlock will be gimped to USELESS. Thats one good thing - they are almost always useful for something.

In dungeons, they are uber-useful. They can extend the days adventuring if the wizard is running low, and their battlefield control abilities are very nice and useful.

Don't overlook some of their less "flashy" abilities - they have a LOT of different evocations that are amazingly useful in a variety of situations.

Overall, I think they are a solid class once you have the prime bases covered. They can easily take the place of an "archer" character, so once you get meleeist, skilled, healer and arcane covered, a warlock is a great option.

[Singing Smurf]

Doesn't Extra Invocation only give you an invocation of one level lower then our current max? (Might be missremembering.)


That's correct.


-S.

[Saz]

Some of their dark invocations are pretty wicked. the one where you can become a cloud of bats is always useful.

The more powerful ones can be quite useful as well in dealing damage at higher leveles. Plus they can be used as many times as you want.

[Mitsugi]

Aside from the obvious oversights (invocations can be used at will, including the "gives +x unnamed bonus to skill y" type, technically allowing you to garner, say, bluff bonuses into the thousands in only an hour of continuous recasting. Go to the powerful, convince them that they should all be your bitches, win D&D.), warlocks are just not very beefy. They're stupid fun to play (as long as you can work around your gigantic flaws), don't get me wrong, but they're just so close to brilliance that I find it frustrating. Kicking up the blast damage wouldn't be a bad thing, as well as adding more invocations allowed. Allowing EB to be used as a full attack without that silly eldritch glaive crap would be pretty schway, too.

Remember, extra staying power is not generally a significant advantage. It's like being infantry. You can theoretically march indefinitely, but when the tanks and artillery run out of gas, you stop too. Fighters have no daily limits on their abilities either, but they don't go on when the cleric and wizard have shot their respective finger-wiggling wads. This is also because fighters are desperately underpowered, but still. Rogues are well balanced and they stop too.

As well, if you never use a certain ability more than six times a day, there isn't really a difference between 6/day and unlimited. Shatter at will is silly fun, but how often do you really cast darkness a day? Or flight? On yourself, mind. That you can pretty much duplicate (and totally outdo) a warlock with a sorceror with a couple reserve feats is kind of messed up, too. Not to mention that any real caster can out-DPR a warlock and the most powerful of them choose not to because they have better things to cast is harsh. It's like being a fighter. That wizard can make himself much more of a melee badass than you with minimal effort and some moderately obscure spells, but he doesn't bother because he has better things to blow some fraction of his spells on than completely outdoing your entire character.

I love warlocks, I just wish they were balanced against the middle of the road classes instead of the really weak ones.

[Borogove]

...invocations can be used at will, including the "gives +x unnamed bonus to skill y" type, technically allowing you to garner, say, bluff bonuses into the thousands in only an hour of continuous recasting. Go to the powerful, convince them that they should all be your bitches, win D&D.)You do realise bonuses from the same source never stack, right? so this doesn't work.

Apart from that, I think you've hit on the big problems with the warlock.

[hackmastergeneral]

If you think of a Warlock as a slightly arcane Archer - taking the place of, say, an archer-Ranger, you're better off than taking the place of an Arcane caster of any stripe. With the right feats and Invocation selection, you can outdo an Archer-style character with a Warlock, not to mention theres a great deal of versatility in a Warlock's abilities. Its a great secondary character to supplement the core four classes/niches. You'll never outshine the big hitters, but they will come to love your abilities and versatility.

[vitus979]

If you think of a Warlock as a slightly arcane Archer - taking the place of, say, an archer-Ranger, you're better off than taking the place of an Arcane caster of any stripe. With the right feats and Invocation selection, you can outdo an Archer-style character with a Warlock, not to mention theres a great deal of versatility in a Warlock's abilities. Its a great secondary character to supplement the core four classes/niches. You'll never outshine the big hitters, but they will come to love your abilities and versatility.

I've heard the Soulbow PrC does this type of build better.

[Mitsugi]

You do realise bonuses from the same source never stack, right? so this doesn't work.

Apart from that, I think you've hit on the big problems with the warlock.

No, bonuses of the same type don't stack. Some (or all, I don't have my CArc handy) of the warlock skill bonus invocations give untyped (i.e., infinitely stackable) bonuses. This is WAD, or your +6 enhancement (or morale/sacred/profane/insight/inherent/competence/luck...) bonus to bluff would be overridden by (or override) any +bluff spells or magic items, which would be bad. Skip Williams did say on the WotC site that untyped bonuses from the same source don't stack, but this does not, in fact, appear in either p171 of the PHB or p21 of the DMG (the areas covering bonus types). It's certainly how I'd rule it, but it's not in the RAW (yes, yes, the rules as written are not holy writ. But I'll only put up with so many flaws. 7th Sea, for example, would require so much houseruling to make it a decent system that it'd be easier to just remodel it with a can of gasoline and a match and write my own RPG using its flavor). Not that I'm complaining about WotC editing, mind. I play Warhammer. Games Workshop editing is absolutely nonexistent (when it's not applied to make things impossible to find). WotC editing is not only good compared to that, it's good period. But this is an oversight. If you check the site regularly, you're right, it's fixed.

The remaining problem I didn't mention is that making a powerful warlock depends largely on going nuts with UMD. And I hate depending on DM charity (oh, here's a magic item that neither the cleric nor the wizard can use without resorting to UMD!) for character power. I'm a gamist with heavy tendencies to take funky or weak archetypes/classes and tweak them until they're at least competent. Relying on the DM to consciously decide to buff me is antithetical to the fun I get from character generation. I mean, yes, you could pick up a holy avenger in a group without a paladin. But the DM has to basically hand it to you. He could also houserule warlocks to be better. Or give you a magic hat that makes you uber. Whatever. The alternate way to abuse UMD is to make the stuff yourself, but God I hate D&D's crafting rules. Blowing XP on magic items is lamesauce. One, it's credit card debt to a possibly terminal patient who might be getting his debt written off. You aren't dinged now, you're maybe dinged later if the game doesn't end first, and the silly-complex XP by level rules might catch you up anyway. I hate that. Two, it's one of the primary in-game motivators for whole swathes of RPGs. To bring up 7th Sea again, in that game, your Hero Points/Fate Points/Luck/Whatever were actual XP you were blowing to give this roll or that a bonus. Or to make the villain explain his diabolical plot or something. The point is, you were encouraged not to spend them, which is backwards. In D&D, hoarding your XP to level is an easier decision with no real consequences, but then nobody crafts. Nobody has months of downtime, either, at least not in the middle of the adventure where they can react to the plot by creating just what they need.

So yeah, UMD is not a fun character power base. Warlocks make good crafters, but the crafting system needs to be gutted. Real casters can craft, and craft well, but at least they don't rely on DM welfare epix to be scary. That's, of course, a problem with pretty much all non-casters, the reliance on magic gear. Not to mention the skills being easily replaced by spells. There are very very few instances where move silently can't be replaced by silence, for example, and then the enemy gets no listen check. Sure, you can't talk, but you're moving silently anyway. And you can bring the whole party. Sigh.

[Icon]

To bring up 7th Sea again, in that game, your Hero Points/Fate Points/Luck/Whatever were actual XP you were blowing to give this roll or that a bonus. Or to make the villain explain his diabolical plot or something. The point is, you were encouraged not to spend them, which is backwards.

Makes perfect sense to me.

You can dial down the difficulty of what you are dealing with by spending experience, which offsets from what you gain from handling the encounter. Easier encounter therefore means you net less experience total than if you had not made the encounter easier.

Elegant if you ask me.

[Mitsugi]

Makes perfect sense to me.

You can dial down the difficulty of what you are dealing with by spending experience, which offsets from what you gain from handling the encounter. Easier encounter therefore means you net less experience total than if you had not made the encounter easier.

Elegant if you ask me.

Except that with the vast overmultiplication of skills in 7th Sea (and the general worthlessness of many expensive advantages), you're a swashbuckling hero incompetent at nearly everything, so you hoard Drama Dice like a packrat so you can get better.

Plus, the payoff is ridiculously low. A drama die is an extra d10 on one roll, where a moderately competent character is rolling six and keeping the best three. A few of them as XP and you can pick up a new skill package. Say, 12 or so and you can get an extra action every round (as well as getting vastly better at all of your social skills). You might get three or five per session in total. Literally, they're Exalted Stunt Dice, only you get fewer of them and you can turn them into XP at the end of the session. Not many players will choose future crippling in favor of a small advantage on one roll.

In a game riffing on Princess Bride and The Scarlet Pimpernel, players are system-rewarded for playing cautiously and circumspectly. That's bad. System should reward (or at the very least, not inhibit) in-genre play.

But anyway, that's way OT.

[Icon]

The execution of the rest of it may have been poor (I got a headache reading and stopped right there) but the concept offered sounds quite reasonable.

[Borogove]

No, bonuses of the same type don't stack. Some (or all, I don't have my CArc handy) of the warlock skill bonus invocations give untyped (i.e., infinitely stackable) bonuses.

Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.No, I'd say that's pretty clear that bonuses from the same source don't stack.

[Mitsugi]

No, I'd say that's pretty clear that bonuses from the same source don't stack.

That is not what the DMG says. I'll quote (briefly): "Identical types of bonuses do not stack..." and "...usually a named bonus does not stack with another bonus of the same name." (3.5e DMG, p21). Typeless bonuses don't have the same type as each other any more than inanimate objects have the same thoughts or colors have the same height.

So they fixed the glaring loophole for the SRD? All well and good. What I said was that if you were using the D&D books, technically the rules permit you to have arbitrarily high skill bonuses and that breaks the game, but short of that warlocks are pretty gimpy.

Icon: In D&D terms, it's like if you could trade a quarter or so of the XP for this session in exchange for about a +4 bonus on a single roll. Yes, fine, not an unnoticeable bonus, but hundreds or thousands of XP for a fractionally higher chance of success on one roll (in a game without Save or Dies, so individual rolls are not gamewinners) is bad design.

[FrankTrollman]

Actually, he's cropping the next part.

SRD says...
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.

-Frank

[Icon]

Icon: In D&D terms, it's like if you could trade a quarter or so of the XP for this session in exchange for about a +4 bonus on a single roll. Yes, fine, not an unnoticeable bonus, but hundreds or thousands of XP for a fractionally higher chance of success on one roll (in a game without Save or Dies, so individual rolls are not gamewinners) is bad design.


Again, the execution may have been off but the concept is not a bad one. Instead of getting the equivalent of a +4 bonus for a single roll getting that bonus for your level in rounds, or an entire encounter might have been more reasonable. Regardless of the actual detail, players being able to simplify challenges in exchange for xp is conceptually a nifty idea.

[hackmastergeneral]

Again, the execution may have been off but the concept is not a bad one. Instead of getting the equivalent of a +4 bonus for a single roll getting that bonus for your level in rounds, or an entire encounter might have been more reasonable. Regardless of the actual detail, players being able to simplify challenges in exchange for xp is conceptually a nifty idea.

I've always hated the concept. Why should I have to sacrifice advancing my character for a good roll on a die?

Star Wars d6, for all its awesomeness, failed on that count. You couldn't go from "crop duster" to "jedi god of the galaxy" in any reasonable way. The game keeps sucking your advancement away. Either you live now, and put off those skill advancements you need, or you take a chance your character dies, and then its all moot anyway. Its no good having drama/luck points for advancement if you die/can't do anything useful without them, and then you get the problem of having a character fire a gun for two years and never getting any better cause they need to blow drama points just to hit anything with it.

If you want drama/luck points, seperate them from the advancement mechanics.

Blowing XP/advancemenbt on a roll or on a save or whatever should be a special, important thing, not something that happens multiple times per session.

[Icon]

I've always hated the concept. Why should I have to sacrifice advancing my character for a good roll on a die?

Where did "have to" enter the picture?

It is a choice, and one that is wholly within the player's realm to make as a balancing offset for what the DM has dreamt up.

But nobody has mentioned a mandatory need to exchange xp for success.

[FrankTrollman]

But it is undeniable that riskier behavior calls for more use of chance altering abilities. And that means that rapid advancement would come from playing it safe, which is essentially the opposite of what you want.

-Frank

[Icon]

But it is undeniable that riskier behavior calls for more use of chance altering abilities. And that means that rapid advancement would come from playing it safe, which is essentially the opposite of what you want.



The opposite of what who wants?

There is a point of challenge beneath which the players have no worries about success. They will win 100% of the time. In said circumstance they will not exchange xp for extra benefit in overcoming the challenge because there is no need to. If there is no mechanism for exchange the players are perfectly fine, if there is said mechanism the players won't use it and again they are perfectly fine.


There is a point of challenge where the players, even making all the exchange said mechanism allows will not only not succeed but will all die to a man 100% of the time. In said situation it makes no difference that they give up xp or not because in the end they lose. Dead with 5000 less xp is the same as dead with 5000 more xp--its dead. At such a point you can not tell a difference between a game with an exchange mechanism and one without.


Between those two extremes exist games where the players may or may not succeed/live and exchanging xp for temporary gain may be advantageous. It may be put forth that the players should always play it the safest possible and make said exchange. But this comes down to perceived levels of risk on the players part and their actual skill at play. Perceived levels of risk matters because it is not as if risk is a binary thing--you do not just have risk or safety but you have a scale of risk going from inconsequential to extreme. At low levels of perceived risk the players are unlikely to make an exchange, and extreme ones they are much more likely to do so. Skill at play because two different groups of players, even playing the exact same characters with the same capabilities, may fare considerably differently based a number of factors such as understanding the game mechanisms, tactical understanding, cooperativeness, etc. A more "skillful" group is likely to find a given situation easier to cope with than a less skillful one will and hence be less prone to exchange xp for situational gain.

TLDR version: Rapid advancement is derived not from a universal application of exchange of xp for situational gain but rather from application of exchange in a direct relationship to the risk.

[FrankTrollman]

There is a point of challenge beneath which the players have no worries about success. They will win 100% of the time. In said circumstance they will not exchange xp for extra benefit in overcoming the challenge because there is no need to.

Yes exactly. However, let us assume for the moment that players are fighting challenging monsters and using their abilities to the fullest extent. They defeat said opponents and take home some amount of net XP, yes?

Now in this situation, you are nominally "costing" them XP to fight level appropriate monsters and then giving them XP for defeating said opponents. But since they are taking home more XP than they are "losing" it's just an accounting gimmick. What's really happening is that the monsters of their level are worth less XP than what's printed on the package.

On the other hand, monsters which are weaker don't "cost" any XP to defeat, and they give less XP for defeating. But while the printed XP rewards are substantially smaller than the printed rewards of fighting a stronger monster, the take-home values are much closer because the printed and net XP totals are the same on a weak monster.

---

What you are doing is not allowing people to risk something to fight larger monsters. There's no risk involved. You're simply reducing the rewards for defeating more powerful and memorable monsters and not reducing the rewards for poking goblins with advanced sticks.

In short, what you are doing is giving incentives for characters to run around beating up on small and weak monsters that pose little real threat. Why you would want to grant incentives to players for essentially wasting your time and theirs is beyond me.

-Frank

[Icon]

There is a point of challenge beneath which the players have no worries about success. They will win 100% of the time. In said circumstance they will not exchange xp for extra benefit in overcoming the challenge because there is no need to.

Yes exactly. However, let us assume for the moment that players are fighting challenging monsters and using their abilities to the fullest extent. They defeat said opponents and take home some amount of net XP, yes?

Now in this situation, you are nominally "costing" them XP to fight level appropriate monsters and then giving them XP for defeating said opponents. But since they are taking home more XP than they are "losing" it's just an accounting gimmick. What's really happening is that the monsters of their level are worth less XP than what's printed on the package.

It is more than an accounting gimmick, it is a fine tuning gimmick. DMs aren't perfect. They sometimes judge incorrectly what their players can handle. Rather than that being, "too bad, so sad" the players have an option to dial back on the difficulty. If a DM sets a challenge too hard, to the point where on average 50% of the players die there being a mechanism that allows to the players to scale that back down is, from the player perspective, more than an accounting gimmick.

[Shawn Conard]

Having played 7th Sea, I have to agree with Mitsugi. The idea isn't terrible in theory but the reward you get for spending a drama die isn't worth the cost in that particular implementation of this idea and the system is just generally inappropriate for a game that, one would think, is trying to encourage swashbuckling action. That is, it seems more genre appropriate to just balance encounters with the assumption that the players will be churning through drama dice.

Then again, other things 7th Sea did (I vaguely recall some pirate captains with auto-kill attacks) are also discouraging of swashbuckling action, so maybe the game was designed with something else in mind.

In any case, the original comparison was made to the mechanic as it worked in 7th Sea, rather than the mechanic in general. And if you get a headache reading about why it didn't work in 7th Sea then just replace the example with something you are familiar with. The point was, as far as I can tell, that magic item creation in D&D was something Mitsugi didn't like.

...and I agree with that as well. In a roundabout kind of way. It's not that it's bad, mind you, so much as that maybe 80% of the GMs I've played the game with have, one way or another, banned magic item creation. Mostly, they do it without realizing they are doing it, simply by removing downtime to make the game more action packed or by giving out a "realistic" amount of money rather than following the encounter guidelines.

[Icon]

Having played 7th Sea, I have to agree with Mitsugi.

Nobody has said 7th Sea had it right.


The idea isn't terrible in theory. . . .


Which is all I've said. Others have treated that as a defence of 7th Sea for some unknown reason.

[Shawn Conard]

Nobody has said 7th Sea had it right.
...
Which is all I've said. Others have treated that as a defence of 7th Sea for some unknown reason.

Just making sure people are all on the same page here, and subtly trying to nudge the conversation back towards D&D. (Look! Magic item creation!) But yeah, the system isn't horrible. It's just, it belongs in a game which wants to reward cautious behavior. WFRP, maybe.

That said, I do use that same system in a pulp fantasy Savage Worlds game and it's working better than when I houseruled the system out of the game. Just, still not as well as I had hoped. I think maybe nWoD and SotC did it right by tying 'luck point' refreshment to things other than the start of the game session.


...

Also, warlocks. And stuff.

[hackmastergeneral]

Which is all I've said. Others have treated that as a defence of 7th Sea for some unknown reason.

No, others have treated it as a defense of the mechanic. Which I have never seen implimented in a way that I like.

I like drama die/luck points/whatever, in theory. In some instances, like Buffy/Angel, they are too powerful and end up being perpetual "get out of jail free" cards, and suck all the drama out of the situations, because theres never any chance of failure.

I HATE them being tied to character advancement, because in order to do cool stuff, I have to give away my only means of advancement. Meaning I am stuck doing the same cool thing, over and over, and have no chance of becoming cooler and thus doing MORE cool things in the future.

Or I hoard them all away, and hope the GM takes it easy on us, and I don't die.

But in most cases, its expected (IE built into game balance and such) that players will be spending at least SOME DP on encounters, so they are balanced with that in mind. Meaning not spending them is putting yourself in MORE danger, and increasing the likelihood that you'll need to use some to bail your ass out before its over.

I hate it. HATES it precious.

[Will]

I hate XP cost for crafting. That said, the cost, in practice, rarely has a noticeable impact. Which also annoys me: it mainly seems to prevent weird situations (like doing nothing but crafting for months) that I rarely ever see in actual play.

I tend to run/play in settings where it's fairly easy to get any normal/high demand magic item. Only occasionally does anyone bother with getting a craft feat, mainly because the minor xp hit can be worth the savings.

Playing without using magic items is a little weird; one of the 'D&D mastery' elements is realizing that you should ALWAYS have CLW wands, maybe several (wands of Lesser Vigor if the DM goes for it, too), and that consumable magic is really freakin' handy.

[vitus979]

I hate XP cost for crafting. That said, the cost, in practice, rarely has a noticeable impact. Which also annoys me: it mainly seems to prevent weird situations (like doing nothing but crafting for months) that I rarely ever see in actual play.

There's weird balancing point where a crafter is -1 level of the rest of the party. Being -1 means you get more XP than the rest of the party, which you use to funnel into crafting more magical gear. A character can seriously outgear the rest of the party in only a moderate of time using this tactic.

[Borogove]

Actually, he's cropping the next part.

The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus.

-FrankI'm not, you know. That text is in a different part of the SRD* I'm looking at. And it's not even remotely relevant, since I'm not talking about two different spells, anyway. More relevant text is just after that, and reads...

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths

In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.

*SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm)

[malindle]

I must have missed the part where this thread jumped over to 7th Sea...

But i've been playing a warlock in a Ravenloft campaign for awhile now, and here's my two cents:

The warlock has a handful of "nifty tricks" up his sleeve that can be incredibly fun to play, but buyer beware, for there are a number of hindrences as well.

1. Eldritch Blast. The core feature of the class, I find that it's useful but not overpowering. It's never going to rival a true spellcasters damage, but can give you a nice punch. Unfortunetly, it takes specific Blast Shapes or Blast Essences to be really fun.

2. Invocations. These keep you from feeling TOO much like a one-trick pony. Unfortunetly, the selection we get is kinda crappy IMO, and some you don't dare take depending on your class/campaign type (see below).

3. Magic Device Usage. On paper, VERY handy. But highly dependant on the campaign. If your GM is stingy, or you don't have a lot of downtime, this feature is effectively pointless. And blowing XP is never fun.

4. Resilience. Not as tough as a fighter, but between armor, fiendish resilience, and clever Invocation usage, you can survive almost any scrape. I'd put it on par with a non-optimized monk.

5. Flavor. Here is where I think the class shines. Add in the Fey or Infernal feats from Complete Mage, or just take the powers of the warlock on their own, this is what keeps the Warlock from feeling like a reject from a bargain-bin superhero RPG.

Be VERY aware of what your party makeup is and what your campaign is going to be. The Warlock has a VERY tight restriction on abilities, and that may not be for you.

If your GM is the type to only run a tiny handful of dramatic encounters per day, this class loses a lot of power. If you never get a chance to sit down and make magic items, or they're just rare to begin with, this class loses a lot of power. If you have a power-socialite in your party such as a Charisma Paladin or a Sorceror... this class loses a lot of power.

Also, be aware of your setting. Some places like Ravenloft, punish you hardcore for using certain spells or abilities.... many of which happen to be the pie and cake of a warlocks invocation library (animate dead for Example). Or your GM might not appreciate you using a warlock with Bestow Curse and Darkness in a setting where such things would commonly lead to stake-burnings among the peasentry.

If you like having a nice bag of dirty little tricks you can pull out, this might be the one for you.

---

On a side note relating to restricted options: There are VERY FEW decent prestige classes. Best I know of is Warlock/Binder/Hellfire Warlock, and theres some argument about that out there.

One thing that always seemed incrediby appropriate would be a binder/warlock class. Yet i've never found one. Anyone know of one out there?