Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Votan 06-06-06, 06:58 PM	I was thinking about how to allow the Warlock into a game while not making the wizard and sorcerer completely outdated. The Warlock's abilities are pretty amazing and the things that she can do really make it hard for these classes to shine. Proposed Enhancements: Sorcerer -> Double Spells known -> Increase hit die to d8 -> Increase BAB to full -> Increase skill points to 4 -> Add any 2 skills as class skills -> Remove all arcane spell failure for the Sorcerer {do I need to improve saves as well? I was waffling between medium BAB and all good saves vs. full BAB and just a Will save} Wizard -> No penalty for being a specialist (i.e. do not lose access to any schools) -> One meta-magic feat may be added to any prepared spell from the wizard's specialty school with no penalty (includes Quicken and Persistent -- such a spell can break the meta-cap). -> Add any 4 skills as class skills -> Add trap-finding -> Bonus feats on every even level instead of 5, 10, 15 and 20. {Does it also need a d8 hit die?} Should I reduce the abilities of the Warlock instead of increasing that of the arcane casters this much??? My original idea was a -1 con point per level penalty for a Warlock but people complained that this made a high level warlock too weak against disjunction spells.
tiluvias99 06-06-06, 07:05 PM	Excuse me while I burst out laughing. *leaves room for a moment* The Warlock is nothing compared to the wizard and sorcerer. The Wizard and Sorcerer will pwn the crap out of a Warlock any day. Don't worry about the Warlock outshining the wizard or sorcerer- it will never happen.
The_Normal_Anomaly 06-06-06, 07:19 PM	The warlock looks like a good choice, but the player will have regrets after seeing disintegrate come from one of the other casters. Sure, neither normal caster can do that all day, but with disintegrate and fireball do they need to? NEVER MAKE THOSE CHANGES YOU JUST LISTED
Drachasor 06-06-06, 07:35 PM	Excuse me while I burst out laughing. *leaves room for a moment* The Warlock is nothing compared to the wizard and sorcerer. The Wizard and Sorcerer will pwn the crap out of a Warlock any day. Don't worry about the Warlock outshining the wizard or sorcerer- it will never happen. That's mostly right--I too found the suggestion amusing. However, at low levels, e.g. 1-4 (through 5 for sorcs), the Warlock is probably better. Of course, Wizards and Sorcerers are not too hot at these levels. The Warlock won't have anything like Web though, so a caster can outdo a warlock with crowd control easily at these levels. Once Wizards and Sorcs start tossing around fireballs and the like however, the Warlock will only seem superior when the casters run out of spells. On a long day he can outshine casters. After level 10 or so this should basically never happen however. -Drachasor PS. Well, a Warlock can make due with magical items and scrolls. If he has enough he could duplicate the effects of a Wizard, but this is very expensive to maintain. As with all classes, the Warlock is stuck relying largely on permanent magical items and his class abilities. At higher levels this largely reduces him to crowd control roles rather than direct damage.
belthazzar1113 06-06-06, 07:37 PM	how about you give wizards access to divine spell lists, shapechange and one spell of each level useable at will as a spell like ability. Then let sorcerers have d12 hp, no arcane spell falure, and change all their spells to supernatural abilities to ignore SR and not provoke attacks of opportunity? Oh and then you can give wizards spell mastery with every spell known to get rid of those silly spell books, and let sorcers learn spells since its silly they can't figure out magic since they are casters... and might as well give wizards a few extra bonus feats, mabey ever three levels instead of every five... just to keep them on pace. But then sorcs might get left out so you better give them bonus feats every 5 levels... and let them pick from any arcane list like the assasin or hexblade spells. oh and then give wizards all the item creation feats as soon as they qualify for them since they are supposed to be crafting anyway. might as well give them an artificer xp pool so they don't fall behind in levels, and give sorcs the ability to use metamagic on the fly since you are giving them the bonus feats.... or you could just crack open the epic level handbook and bend over as your players beat you over the backside with it. /sarcasm off warlocks are not that powerful. they don't outshine wizards or sorcs. all people see if "unlimited eldritch blast" and say nope, its broken. not realizing wizards and sorcs do far far more damage each round and manage to last just fine thoughout the day. why don't you just give them a try before you start breaking the game in every single way imaginable? i mean if you want to play a level 0 epic level gestalt demigod game thats great, but for the rest of us i think you just blew every powergaming sensor we have.
Seerow 06-06-06, 07:37 PM	...XD C'mon Votan, I thought you've been around longer than that. This is the sort of question one expects to see from a new person or a troll. Gods, Im going to be laughing about this the rest of the day. Thanks.
djbeatboy 06-06-06, 07:38 PM	What THE!?!?!?! :uh-huh: :OMG! :shocked: DOUBLE the spells know for a sorc?????? :bigeyes: :gah: d8 HD for the WIZARD!?!!?! :nonono: :doh: A) Can I ask if you have seen a Warlock in play? B) Was it also in a group with Wiz & Sorc? If you have answer no to either of these question do NOT make any changes to these classes without first doing so! If you have answered yes, then how can you really believe that the Warlock so dramatically out strips the other two classes?? Dude if you seriously believe that the Warlock puts these classes to shame so much then just don't use them... Don't get me wrong I love the Warlock and will be playing one Very soon... I also have a very soft spot for the Sorc and I have to say that the Sorc & Wiz (as is) will totally outshine the Warlock at higher lvls... The great think about the warlock (as has been said in many threads b4) is that a the lower levels 1-6 they really are GODS, but it is at this point that things change and the Wiz & Sorc come into their own.... By 10th lvl and above the Warlock is putting out only a steady stream of OK damage where as the Wiz & Sorc and killing things in two rounds.... By lvl 15+ the warlock is kind of left behind... but by this time he is the Master if the UMD and has Staves/Scrolls/Magic-Whatever coming out of his ... well you get the point... They have become the Kings of battlefield control, but it's the Wiz & Sorc that are the TRUE GODS..... So really dude.... Chill out a little and test the class out before making such MASSIVE changes to the others..... Good Luck... :)
Drachasor 06-06-06, 07:40 PM	Oh, I would note you should always keep track of what abilities the warlock has. In fact, you should do this with all players. Warlocks with See the Unseen and the like can get annoying for some DMs. You just need to plan around those abilities (not to make them useless, but so you won't get caught with your pants down). My Warlock really ****** off my DM once with this ability, but it isn't something overpowered (heck, See Invisibility is a 2nd level spell and lasts for 10 minutes/caster level), but rather because he paid not attention to what I could do.* I would add that a well-played wizard can easily outdo the Warlock with such utility spells. You might not see it as often though, since a lot of players like to focus on combat oriented magic. So, in a sense, in this way a Warlock with the right invocations might outdo a Wizard played by an average player. But only in this one, small way (and with average players). -Drachasor *In fact I had emailed him a couple weeks prior with a list of everything my character could do and how to counter it (because I saw a problem could develop). Apparently he didn't pay attention.
Nephlite 06-06-06, 07:52 PM	I was thinking about how to allow the Warlock into a game while not making the wizard and sorcerer completely outdated. The Warlock's abilities are pretty amazing and the things that she can do really make it hard for these classes to shine. Tell me what part of the warlock is overpowered? Ask you Sorceror to choose shatter as 1st level slot. Done? Now he has mos likely as many opportunities touse shatter as Warlock. Seriously, how many times do you use it? Is it the Eldritch Blast? The Warlock is an Arcane crossbowman in essence: touch attack, but 1 shot only. Damage far below arcane casters and melee damagers. Better chance to hit than meleers though. Is it the Darkness at will? Seeing as darkness is no longer that dark (funny really), I don't see how 20% miss chance is that great. Is it see Invisiblity? Depends how often the warlock expects to see it A Wizard that prepared only Glitterdust as 1st level would have same ability + blinding effect (which is good on enemies). Summon Swarm? Okay, while not awesome, warlock does get it at first level if he chooses it. But he gives upsomany other useful abilities so hard choice. Taste that indecision? That was balance. Now the Essence abilities that attach to eldritch blast: 1. Blinds 1enemy. Wizards have stuff to do that. 2. Fire 1 enemy: hmm, burning hands does that. 3. Freezing 1 enemy: okay -2 pen dex is new, but not that great since penalties won't stack. Now we leave low levels (6+): Charm person? Wizards can already do that at level 1. Warlocks are behind. Animate Dead? Temporary duration unlike the Wizard or Cleric version. Dispel magic? Decent boost that wizards can do too. Warlock's version damages targets also so worth it. Now the Essence abilities that attach to eldritch blast: 1) Frightful Blast : shakens 1 dude. Not that great, but okay. 2) Sickening Blast : sickened 1 dude. Decent, but not overpowering. Shapes for Eldritch Blast: 1. Eldritch Chain: Hits 1 target and bounces to another. Seeing as the blast does little that isn't that great. No Fireball area damage or anything. Now the Essence abilities that attach to eldritch blast: 1. Blinds 1 enemy. Wizards have stuff to do that. 2. Fire 1 enemy: hmm, burning hands does that. 3. Freezing 1 enemy: okay -2 pen dex is new, but not that great since penalties won't stack. Now I can't say whether they become too strongafter level 10 when they gain Greater Invocations, but I'd like some examples of overpowered abilities. Is it the picture of at will abilities? Or do have some actual expereince.
Drachasor 06-06-06, 08:03 PM	Tell me what part of the warlock is overpowered? Ask you Sorceror to choose shatter as 1st level slot. Done? Now he has mos likely as many opportunities touse shatter as Warlock. Seriously, how many times do you use it? Shatter is a second level spell. Is it see Invisiblity? Depends how often the warlock expects to see it A Wizard that prepared only Glitterdust as 1st level would have same ability + blinding effect (which is good on enemies). You have to admit that a Warlock with See the Unseen is more likely to be a position to see something invisible than the average Wizard (at least in the games I have played). It is nothing a Wizard can't do though (and you aren't going to see much invisible until higher levels anyhow). Dispel magic? Decent boost that wizards can do too. Warlock's version damages targets also so worth it. Sadly this doesn't scale with level. Max caster modifier is +10. : ( -Drachasor
Esponer 06-06-06, 10:17 PM	You're all going to be kicking yourselves when the OP admits he was just trying to see how many heart attacks he could cause with a single post.
Seerow 06-06-06, 10:27 PM	Then the mods would be kicking him because that qualifies under trolling. =D
Thomas_Covenant 06-06-06, 10:28 PM	Ordinarily this would annoy me as a Wizard junky, but after the third time laughing out loud, I have to commend the OP. Wow. Just Wow. Full BAB, open skills, more hps, free quicken, trap-finding?!(inventive, that one) I commend thee. :clap: Seriously, it was so well written I thought you were serious the first time. Mainly because I was laughing too hard halfway through the sorcerer to read straight, but that's still worth something.
belthazzar1113 06-06-06, 10:31 PM	didn't go nearly far enough!!! d20 hp, all supernatural abilities, metamagic stacking only applying the highest level of modification instead of stacking, wizards in armor, and sorcs having divine rank 0.
Archangel62 06-06-06, 10:33 PM	Actually judging by his track record he's an anti-warlock poster. Well, if you want to make the wizard an equal you can choose spells no higher than 4th level, take mediocre ones at best. And finally you could take as bonus feats "Skill focus: Basketweaving, Skill focus: Perform: Weapon drill" and things like that.
Votan 06-07-06, 12:50 AM	A) Can I ask if you have seen a Warlock in play? B) Was it also in a group with Wiz & Sorc? If you have answer no to either of these question do NOT make any changes to these classes without first doing so! If you have answered yes, then how can you really believe that the Warlock so dramatically out strips the other two classes?? Dude if you seriously believe that the Warlock puts these classes to shame so much then just don't use them... While there was some hyperbole in the orginal post, it has a seriosu question at the heart of it. I have played an arcane caster (White dragonspawn Sorcerer -- who could have dreamed this would go so badly) next to a warlock. I've also played a psion next to a warlock. The latter experience pushed my dislike of the class into pathological hatred (well, maybe some more hyperboloe but I don't often make a pro-warlock post). Now, the warlock happens to be the favorite class of about 50% of my gaming group. It wins the prize as the most frequently played class by far (beating out all melee classes and even the other popular choices like Ranger and Monk). I dropped out for a short period and came back to find the group had slowly filled with them again after my one period of a no warlock party. Now, I like arcane casters but the warlock really annoys me based on spending so much time being so second fiddle to them (perhaps I need to spend more time optimizing arcane casters -- I tried hard). Again, it was the psion experience that broke me [when I calculated that I could average something like 1.5 power points an encounter at 4th level given our encoutner/rest rate and crossbowman looks much more effective on the boards than it is with a 12 dex poor BAB level 4 telepath and it just did not seem worth dropping int for dex -- meanwhile the warlock shattered a weapon or plate armor or something else cool every action]. I'd like to have some non-warlock arcane casters next time I rotate in the DMs chair. So I suggested a penalty to the warlock (-1 con per level). Let's just say that the adjective "popular" was not the most appropriate reaction. So, plan B was to think of a way to make people reconsider the arcane casters. The one thing that was actually competitive with a warlock when I played opposite to one was a seriously min/maxed elf druid (after the psion I was annoyed). Now, the suggestion above is definitely pushed to the absolute max and would make the Sorcerer look better than the Fighter for many melee builds which would be an unpleasant side effect (it also makes the Duskblade seem pointless). But the core point was to put out a "maximum force" revision and see if people could critique it to something that would work. Another (far elss radical) idea that I toyed with was giving characters a "signature spell" -- one first level spell that they could always cast at will. magic missle, for example, would be balanced against eldritch blast (where it the choice) and, if the limiting factor is actions, then this could hardly be broken if the warlock is not??? Anyway, I am glad that the original post was amusing but there was a serious point at the core.
OliverR 06-07-06, 01:01 AM	If you think one class is overpowered: Nerf the class Never power up other classes. In your case, you'll have to change the fighter to be in line with your new wizard. And don't forget the rogue, Bard, paladin, cleric, ranger, barbarian, druid and so on. So instead of beefing up all other classes, just nerv the one worrying you. But to be honest, the warlock is one class, that is rather underpowered, at least at higher Levels.
utilitarian 06-07-06, 01:15 AM	At any point beyond 4th or so a wizard OR scorc is generally going to be more useful than a warlock. Sure they can do thier things unlimited number of times per day, but you don't NEED to! I mean, hell, how much combat do you SEE in a session? Unless you're doing like 50 rounds of combat every session without any chance to rest you're generally not going to "run out" of spells more than occasionally. I will admit using Shatter at will DOES make unattended objects everywhere fear for thier existences, but after a session or two of breaking everything that gets in your way, your DM is just going to start making stuff out of heavier materials or putting minor magic enchantments on it.
Zephyrus/Sonet 06-07-06, 01:34 AM	Please, DM my games. Please? :)
Kuraito 06-07-06, 02:59 AM	Woah, easy people. The guy is intitled to his opinions, and though I disagree, as someone who also holds rather unpopular opinions, I don't think its right for everyone to be hammering on him so much. Why not just explain, in a clear way, why you think the warlock is fine and that you've never had any problems with it. Don't dogpile the guy with ridicule. Really, back off guys. Just because you think differently, doesn't make you anymore right then him. Except, hes being sarcastic. He's probably laughing his butt off right now. Lighten up people, take a joke. The fact everyone took him so seriously makes me very, very said. God, what would have happened to me if I brought up what I thought of wizards? You people make me sad.... Btw, if your serious, and like me, think Arcane is the weakest of the three schools of magic, my suggestion? Work on a DECENT spell point system. In my opinion, the major reason Psionics is so much better then Arcane is because the point system kicks the CRAP out of the spell slot system.
gkp79 06-07-06, 04:42 AM	At lower level (1-7) Warlocks are great. They do pretty decent damage and can cast Eldritch Blast all day long, in addition to a few pretty useful invocations tossed in. The thing is, these low levels are traditionally the weak point for arcane casters so it is no wonder that another class out performs them. Rather than comparing the warlock to a wizard for these levels compare what he does to the fighter or barbarian who can dish out damage every single round with their greatsword and, with the right feats, could also be sundering or disarming weapons pretty effectively against medium sized opponents. At mid levels and higher levels the Sorcerer or Wizard is going to blow Warlocks away in terms of both battlefield power and out of battle utility spells. The Warlocks little 5d6 damage EB and self-only invovation buffs look like childs play compared to what a real arcane caster can do. If your campaigns only focus on the lower levels, then I can see how someone might consider Warlocks to be overpowered. They are quite a bit better than the underpowered wizards at these levels. But if you play into the teens or, god forbid, the epic levels, a Warlock really is pretty substandard in all ways.
Broken vacuum 06-07-06, 07:09 AM	Well, Votan, if you perceive warlocks as a problem in your games, then they are a problem for you. If you want to receive any help, however, you must tell us exactly what it is with them that makes them a problem. It is by no means obvious. Since I do not know exactly what your problems with them are, I am going to bring up some things that sometimes mean trouble; feel free to ignore any that do not apply. 1. Make sure that you actually utilise the rules and apply a -4 penalty for firing into melee and a +4 to AC for soft cover when applicable. 2. A warlock can only apply one blast shape and one eldritch essence invocation to his eldritch blast per casting. 3. As a spell-like ability the eldritch blast requires one standard action to cast. Multiple eldritch blasts per round is not possible without utilising feats such as Quicken Spell-Like Ability. 4. Warlocks have an extremely limited amount of invocations known; this essentially makes them one trick ponies. In a campaign with varied encounters a warlock's available tricks will frequently be either sub-optimal or even useless. If you want to compare a warlock with an arcane caster, make sure that you compare a given warlock with a given caster. 5. The game is balanced around an average of 4 level-appropriate encounters per day. Warlocks, as well as any other class that do not have per day limits on their powers (which basically means anyone that is not a caster), do not suffer from a much higher average while ordinary casters do. As a matter of fact, it is usually more productive to compare warlocks to archers than it is to compare them to wizards or sorcerers. 6. Important parts of an arcane caster's power include divinations, party buffs and helps, battlefield control and to a lesser extent damage to multiple foes. Warlocks are bad at all these things. If your arcane casters do not use such spells, they are robbing themselves of most of their power. 7. Make sure that the costs for crafting magic items that you allow in your campaign are appropriate. 8. Baleful Utterance only works on non-magical objects, attended objects receive saves and it has a weight limit. A 4th level warlock cannot shatter a 50 lb. armour.
Oliver D'Argent 06-07-06, 07:18 AM	It sounds like the game style favors the Warlock too if there tend to be a lot of encounters between opportunities to rest. There is really no need to power down the Warlock or power up the other arcane classes - the DM simply needs to throw some things in that limit the apparent advantage the Warlocks have in your game; fewer encounters between rest times, opponents with natural weapons and armor (can't be shattered), opponents with higher touch ACs, that sort of thing. I'm afraid that disliking a class because you have been overshadowed by it seems rather immature to me - if you can't beat them, join them; play your own Warlock.
Votan 06-07-06, 08:44 AM	Well, Votan, if you perceive warlocks as a problem in your games, then they are a problem for you. If you want to receive any help, however, you must tell us exactly what it is with them that makes them a problem. It is by no means obvious. The key things seem to be: -> I think previous house rules hurt arcane casters and I want to rebuild popularity with these classes -> The Warlock has a lot of good at will abilities that, when combined cleverly (and I see this a lot), are extremely flexible and potent. In particular, a Warlock seems to contribute every round of combat even if he isn't the star of the encounter (something other arcanists and psions have trouble doing). -> The goal was to give other classes a chance to contribute across the game to make up for spells running out. If a Sorcerer has full BAB, d8 hit points and is wearing armor (well, he'd need to multiclass or spend feats -- but that's the balance issue) then he could stand next to the fighter in the front line and contribute. Maybe not as much but it wouldn't be as painful as now. Likewise, a trapfinding wizard who takes search as a skill might be a rogue substitute and a way of convincing people to try a wizard as the party scout. Since I do not know exactly what your problems with them are, I am going to bring up some things that sometimes mean trouble; feel free to ignore any that do not apply. 1. Make sure that you actually utilise the rules and apply a -4 penalty for firing into melee and a +4 to AC for soft cover when applicable.. This actually made a huge difference when implemented and was one of the major payoffs to reading a bunch of threads on the Warlock as I wouldn't have figured this one out without help. Early in the day we had warlocks firing without such penalties and it was even worse than it is now. 2. A warlock can only apply one blast shape and one eldritch essence invocation to his eldritch blast per casting. Yep. 3. As a spell-like ability the eldritch blast requires one standard action to cast. Multiple eldritch blasts per round is not possible without utilising feats such as Quicken Spell-Like Ability. Also check. It's rare that we ever see a level where multiple attacks are an issue but I have made careful note for the day in which we do. 4. Warlocks have an extremely limited amount of invocations known; this essentially makes them one trick ponies. In a campaign with varied encounters a warlock's available tricks will frequently be either sub-optimal or even useless. If you want to compare a warlock with an arcane caster, make sure that you compare a given warlock with a given caster. Our warlocks get a lot out of "See the Unseen" and "Shatter". The only warlock I ever saw underperform used "Begiiling voice" or something like that which looked like it would be really powerful but simply wasn't. 5. The game is balanced around an average of 4 level-appropriate encounters per day. Warlocks, as well as any other class that do not have per day limits on their powers (which basically means anyone that is not a caster), do not suffer from a much higher average while ordinary casters do. As a matter of fact, it is usually more productive to compare warlocks to archers than it is to compare them to wizards or sorcerers. The 4 encounters per day issue is fine. But remeber you need to successfully rest to get the recharge. What drove me nuts playing a psion opposite to the warlock was having to go 2-3 days before acquiring enough encounter-free time to recharge. This applies to arcane casters but not, as far as I can tell, to divine casters. So the cleric is whistling, the warlock doesn't notice while the wizard is wondering if he should multiclass to be more useful as an archer. Anyway, this experience broke me of the myth that a psion is useful. I'd still try a wizard or sorcerer again but part of what I was suggestinjg in the first post invovled ways to keep these classes useful in day 2, day 3 and so forth. Now I admit that my wizard days had the disadvantage of particularily painful house rules (the vitalizing rules from UA so the wizard is always fatigued, spellbooks that you can't scribe into nor can you read another caster's spellbook, enemies who attacked at night while day was bad for resting, strange spell access rules, forced school loses and "overpowered" mobility spells like teleport and mount -- yes, mount -- being banned). But the sorcerer and psion experiences were not an enormous improvement. That being said, a tricked out Druid was toughter than a Warlock so I'll admit that warlocks do not rule the roost completely or any such thing. 6. Important parts of an arcane caster's power include divinations, party buffs and helps, battlefield control and to a lesser extent damage to multiple foes. Warlocks are bad at all these things. If your arcane casters do not use such spells, they are robbing themselves of most of their power. Depends on the era in terms of what I have tried. Wizard era -- if it is a utility spell it is probably banned because level 1 wizards are shockingly overpowered. Also, at level up spells only it's hard to get a wide range of spells. You also had to specialize to get access to most good spells in a school and transmutation and conjuration were automatically lost when you specialized unless you picked one of them as a specalist school. Me, I was a conjurer as a result. Sorcerer era -- Probably my closest to this. That character was actually doing okay until it got sneak attacked from ambush and died in the surprise round. I had a braod range of spells prepared for this but I wasn't at a level where I could have defenses up 24/7. About 50% of the time when I am a player we have a DM who bans sorcerers which is where the psion comes in (as he is also the one with the above wizard rules). Psion era -- Long, frustrating and painful. I had manifestations like detect thoughts. Could I ever convince myself to risk using them? Almost never. I ended up relying on CHA skills (with an 8 charisma -- Str 8 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha 8 -- turns out this does not qualify for a reroll) and had some success that way. But a Bard would have done way better as a charmisma skill monkey. DM era -- the wizard player switched to a warlock and was way happier. Okay, I made a classic DMing mistake (no matter how logical, having the first level wizard robbed of his spellbook was something I needed to do more gymnastics to avoid). But I don't think that this was decisive. Part of it was that a level 1 wizard feels very weak. The halfling "super-marksman" warlock that followed was thr party MVP for the rest of the campaign. The rest of the party was a cleric, a monk and a bard -- nobody came close to te warlock in either contributions in combat or chances to shine. 7. Make sure that the costs for crafting magic items that you allow in your campaign are appropriate. That is an area of serious concern but usually we don't play at levels where the warlock's crafting dominates. I like the local area house rule of players level up every 4 sessions. This makes crafting and other XP cost activities free. I can usually manage the wizard on this point but the warlock just begs for problems given how much he could push this. 8. Baleful Utterance only works on non-magical objects, attended objects receive saves and it has a weight limit. A 4th level warlock cannot shatter a 50 lb. armour. True but it was something annoying like 10 lbs per level which was enough to shatter an amazing variety of enemy equipment. I beleive it was will saves. Either that or the DM was rolling really badly because only the blackguard ever saved against a shatter.
CaoSlayer 06-07-06, 08:54 AM	If a Sorcerer has full BAB, d8 hit points and is wearing armor (well, he'd need to multiclass or spend feats -- but that's the balance issue) then he could stand next to the fighter in the front line and contribute. Maybe not as much but it wouldn't be as painful as now. Someone said battle sorcerer?
Count Arioch the 28th 06-07-06, 09:02 AM	The 4 encounters per day issue is fine. But remeber you need to successfully rest to get the recharge. What drove me nuts playing a psion opposite to the warlock was having to go 2-3 days before acquiring enough encounter-free time to recharge. This applies to arcane casters but not, as far as I can tell, to divine casters. So the cleric is whistling, the warlock doesn't notice while the wizard is wondering if he should multiclass to be more useful as an archer. Anyway, this experience broke me of the myth that a psion is useful. I'd still try a wizard or sorcerer again but part of what I was suggestinjg in the first post invovled ways to keep these classes useful in day 2, day 3 and so forth. Actually, the reason that you thought the psion wasn't useful was because your DM wasn't letting you rest. Your DM's whole game was based around making Wizards and Psions useless. It's no surprise that they are usless when the DM goes out of their way to screw them over, and to make Warlocks powerful. Your DM is a warlock fetishist. I suggest you find a different groupt o play with, then you will see that Wizards and Psions both tend to be better than warlocks.
Luske 06-07-06, 09:13 AM	To me it also sounds like you are focusing on lvl 1-4 where mages arent that powerful but from lvl 5 and on they start shining more and more. Also get a ring of sustenance asap 2 hours sleep do i have to say more.
D-Dus 06-07-06, 09:20 AM	Actually, the reason that you thought the psion wasn't useful was because your DM wasn't letting you rest. Your DM's whole game was based around making Wizards and Psions useless. It's no surprise that they are usless when the DM goes out of their way to screw them over, and to make Warlocks powerful. Your DM is a warlock fetishist. I suggest you find a different groupt o play with, then you will see that Wizards and Psions both tend to be better than warlocks. I agree. It seems that most of your problems with the warlock were caused because of bad DMs or other circumstances. I've played spellcasters almost everytime I'm a player (sorcerers, clerics and favoured souls) and I've had a real good look at the warlock (although I haven't actually played it myself, I saw one in action, played by someone else). I can't see how the regular spellcasters would be less then a warlock, especially at higher levels. But I'm a favoured soul fetishist, to borrow the word, so it may be that I'm biased :D
bitnine 06-07-06, 10:32 AM	Hey, I think the warrior NPC class is overpowered. 'Cause, in this one game we were in a demiplane where we couldn't ever sleep without waking up within an hour from horrible nightmares. So my wizard never had any spells except for the first session and that damn warrior just kept on outshining me. That makes the warrior just sick! It totally needs to be nerfed.
danielinthewolvesden 06-07-06, 11:01 AM	[QUOTE=Votan -> The goal was to give other classes a chance to contribute across the game to make up for spells running out. The 4 encounters per day issue is fine. But remeber you need to successfully rest to get the recharge. What drove me nuts playing a psion opposite to the warlock was having to go 2-3 days before acquiring enough encounter-free time to recharge. This applies to arcane casters but not, as far as I can tell, to divine casters. So the cleric is whistling, the warlock doesn't notice while the wizard is wondering if he should multiclass to be more useful as an archer. Anyway, this experience broke me of the myth that a psion is useful. I'd still try a wizard or sorcerer again but part of what I was suggestinjg in the first post invovled ways to keep these classes useful in day 2, day 3 and so forth. Now I admit that my wizard days had the disadvantage of particularily painful house rules (the vitalizing rules from UA so the wizard is always fatigued, spellbooks that you can't scribe into nor can you read another caster's spellbook, enemies who attacked at night while day was bad for resting, strange spell access rules, forced school loses and "overpowered" mobility spells like teleport and mount -- yes, mount -- being banned). .[/QUOTE] This is then your problem. In a normal campaign, the Sorceror almost never runs out of spells. And, the Psion and Wizards get to rest. Sure, once in a while a DM will run a few nite attacks to show the PC's what happens if they don't get a chance to rest, but that's rare, not common. The game is designed for 4 encounters- rest & recover- 4 encounters- R&R- and so forth. Sure, there could be a special quest with 6 or 8 encounters per day for a brief time, or even a long journey with only one encounter per days for weeks. However- those should be unusual, not normal. But when/if the number of encounters get way off from the designed for "4", game balance changes. If you normally have less than 4, the Psion whups butt. If you have a few more, the Sorc comes into his own. When you get a lot more, the Warlock becomes more powerful. BUT- at the designed for normal quota of 4/day (and without silly houserules) the class power levels rank Wizard, then Psion, then Sorc.... then Warlock last of those 4. And, frankly, those houserules were darn silly, and crocked Wizard beyond beleif. Not that Wizard can't do with a little nerfing mind you*, sure, but applying all of those at once is just plain wrong. *in fact, it'd help game balance a lot. In you average campaign, for balance, I'd nerf Wizard a tiny bit(Let us say- no using other's spellbooks, maybe), boost Sorc a tad (I've suggested one free feat @1st from a choice of stuff like Draconic Heritage, Eschew Materials, etc), and perhaps even boost Warlock a little!
belthazzar1113 06-07-06, 12:03 PM	your playing in a campain model i call "No rest for the wicked" very few rest periods means that classes that need to recharge are going to be hard pressed. wizards are going to be the hardest hit. don't nerf warlocks just because the particular game your in favors them. We played a game in the worlds largets dungeon. 1-25 dungeon crawl, no towns, no citys, no wilderness, just dungeon. you know what? i didn't play the artificer that i wanted to play because i knew the game wouldn't favor them. I played something else, an incarnate to be exact. If arcane casters suck in THIS PARTICULAR GAME, then don't play one. you don't need to encourage people to play a wizard when wizards arn't going to be good to have along. Your game favors people that can last long periods of time without needing to recharge. and from what it sounds like your saying clerics get recharged at a certain time of day... well they need to stop and rest for 8 hours to pray for spells, but if your not doing that... well then don't do it for wizards either. if your going to break the rules for one then break the rules for all of them. if your going to enforce the rules then stop selectivly enforcing them. you don't need to make wizards better, you need to stop making everyone else bendable. your game just hates wizards and you like them. deal with it and play something else or find a new game. mabey thats harsh but putting something like -1 con per level of warlock is about the dumbest thing i have ever heard. People say not to be mean to you but you are being a royal *****hat and hating on warlocks for no decernable reason. And it really angers alot of us to see so much hating for one of the most innovative and origonal concepts to come out of the game in a long time. Warlocks are a great system and a great idea, and to hate them so much without passion is as silly as hating psionics because they don't SAY its magic. get over your irrational hate and let the warlock love go.
Votan 06-07-06, 12:49 PM	your playing in a campain model i call "No rest for the wicked" very few rest periods means that classes that need to recharge are going to be hard pressed. wizards are going to be the hardest hit. don't nerf warlocks just because the particular game your in favors them. We played a game in the worlds largets dungeon. 1-25 dungeon crawl, no towns, no citys, no wilderness, just dungeon. you know what? i didn't play the artificer that i wanted to play because i knew the game wouldn't favor them. I played something else, an incarnate to be exact. If arcane casters suck in THIS PARTICULAR GAME, then don't play one. you don't need to encourage people to play a wizard when wizards arn't going to be good to have along. Your game favors people that can last long periods of time without needing to recharge. and from what it sounds like your saying clerics get recharged at a certain time of day... well they need to stop and rest for 8 hours to pray for spells, but if your not doing that... well then don't do it for wizards either. if your going to break the rules for one then break the rules for all of them. if your going to enforce the rules then stop selectivly enforcing them. you don't need to make wizards better, you need to stop making everyone else bendable. your game just hates wizards and you like them. deal with it and play something else or find a new game. mabey thats harsh but putting something like -1 con per level of warlock is about the dumbest thing i have ever heard. People say not to be mean to you but you are being a royal *****hat and hating on warlocks for no decernable reason. And it really angers alot of us to see so much hating for one of the most innovative and origonal concepts to come out of the game in a long time. Warlocks are a great system and a great idea, and to hate them so much without passion is as silly as hating psionics because they don't SAY its magic. get over your irrational hate and let the warlock love go. You will ntoe that plan B was to enhance the Sorcerer and/or wizard instead of nerfing the Warlock. I think that the -1 CON per level was cool. I weas explaining it like the Emperor and Darh Vader in Star Wars where the Dark Side slowly leeches your vitality away as you become strong in it. Everybody liked the flavor text and then screamed when I suggested the mechanic. It's now rated as my least successful attempted house rule. It wasn't just the campaign that killed off arcane casters that I saw this in however -- this was just the game that shifted dislike into resentment. They seem to be a generally popular and extremely common class. Even under the 3rd possible DM the Warlock seems to massively outperform the Sorcerer/Wizard. In fact, I see a lot of "how to make a warlock uber". I'd be extremely curious to see a practical guide to making a wizard (under real constraints) better than a warlock. Even a close match at level 3 (most common level I play at) would be highly appreciated. Or, if it just has to wait until level 10, how do you manage a restricted list of spells? A wizard looks easy on paper where you cna optimize for an encounter but I never see this in practice. Sorcerer looked easier. But the warlock always outperformed the sorcerer even when both were 8th level and it wasn't typically a small gap. :(
NineInchNall 06-07-06, 01:12 PM	Votan, listen to what everyone is saying: Your campaign is tailored to making classes that need to recharge crappy. It's as simple as that. The Warlock is not the problem; it's that your game favors all the classes that do not have uses/day abilities that require rest to recharge. Oh, and if you want an easy way to get that rest you need as a Wizard, at 5th level (6th with a Sorc) you can cast an extended rope trick and sleep in that for 8 hours, wake, and prepare your spells. Since you're useless without your spells prepared, there's no reason for you to involve yourself in a night encounter that your party can and must handle without you. Another reason you're seeing Warlocks as dominating is that your games evidently don't reach the later levels. At later levels the power of Wizards and Sorcerers completely eclipses that of Warlocks (and all other classes save the full divine casters, the most powerful classes in the game). At these levels you might be able to get through entire weeks of encounters with just a single spell (polymorph any object). Even then, however, you'll still need to ensure that your character gets his beauty sleep. Either make them understand that they need to let you sleep or force the issue by casting mordenkainen's magnificent mansion and sleeping on your own, in luxury. The bottom line is that Warlocks are not overpowered - it's that your games do not give Wizards an easy chance to shine. Force the party (in character) to acknowledge your need for rest. Or, as a last resort, don't play a Sor/Wiz/Psion. If you can't get the ball rolling, use a different ball. Oh, and yes, Clerics do need to rest to regain their spell slots.
Seerow 06-07-06, 01:13 PM	Realize that -1 con per level means to be a level 20 Warlock and STILL BE ALIVE you'd have to have used some sort of magic items. (Minimum 15 con base and using an item for +6 constitution, just to be alive with 1 con. AT BEST if you put all stats into con, got a tome, and started with an 18, you could have 14 at the end. No, that's not good) Anyway, you're playing at 3rd level. Third! From levels 1-3 anyone playing any sort of Arcane Caster better know what they're doing, or they won't just be outshined by Warlocks... they'll be outshined by everybody. The Fighter running up and hitting every enemy in sight for 2d6+4 damage? Check. The Rogue sneak attacking for 3d6 damage? Check. The Druid whose animal companion is arguably as good as or better than the Fighter? Check. The Cleric who by your rules recharges instantly? Check. Of course Psions and Arcanists are going to suck, the rules suck for them infinitely. As for 8th leve Sorc vs 8th level Warlock. You have 4th level spells! What more do you want?
Nephlite 06-07-06, 01:36 PM	As for 8th level Sorc vs 8th level Warlock. You have 4th level spells! What more do you want? Depends on whether he is comparing or dueling. A 8th level Sorceror can waste a Warlock? Eldritch blast? Globe of Lesser Invulnerbility. Fly? Fly spell (if you put on fly before Globe, globe doesn't cancel it) Summom Swam? Summom Swarm. Everything Warlock can do: so can Sorceror. Just that Sorceror can't do it all day. But what he can do is stronger than warlock when he tries hard.
Broken vacuum 06-07-06, 02:30 PM	The key things seem to be: -> I think previous house rules hurt arcane casters and I want to rebuild popularity with these classes Revising the previous houserules and possibly introducing a wizard or sorcerer NPC should do it. -> The Warlock has a lot of good at will abilities that, when combined cleverly (and I see this a lot), are extremely flexible and potent. In particular, a Warlock seems to contribute every round of combat even if he isn't the star of the encounter (something other arcanists and psions have trouble doing). For starters low level warlocks have only one or two invocations, meaning they can pull off one combo. Once you go above that, even generalist wizards have spell slots enough that they can lay down a couple of spells every encounter. Also, it is important to realise that not everyone has to contribute every round in every encounter. Low level arcane casters typically have few slots, so they are better off using them to maximum effect. If scroll access is limited they should concentrate on making decisive use of one or two spells per encounter. The trick is to make the spells count. Played correctly they have no less an impact on the battle than anyone else. Again, warlocks really do not compare that well to an arcane caster; they are much better off viewed as archers with a couple of extra tricks up their sleeves. -> The goal was to give other classes a chance to contribute across the game to make up for spells running out. If a Sorcerer has full BAB, d8 hit points and is wearing armor (well, he'd need to multiclass or spend feats -- but that's the balance issue) then he could stand next to the fighter in the front line and contribute. Maybe not as much but it wouldn't be as painful as now. Conserve spells and use scrolls. Arcane casters are typically weak at early levels and have preciously few spell slots. They make up for it by being able to pull off spectacular effects now and then. A spell such as Colour Spray or Sleep can end a low level encounter if used correctly. Warlocks are not weak at low levels, but neither are they able to fill the role of an arcane caster. Our warlocks get a lot out of "See the Unseen" and "Shatter". The only warlock I ever saw underperform used "Begiiling voice" or something like that which looked like it would be really powerful but simply wasn't. Shatter is a powerful spell, but it does have limits and wizards can get access to it at third level. See the Unseen is nice, but both See Invisibility and Darkvision are 2nd-level spells with rather long durations, so they are good candidates for scrolls. Also the invocation is only useful when facing invisible opponents or when running around in complete darkness. The 4 encounters per day issue is fine. But remeber you need to successfully rest to get the recharge. What drove me nuts playing a psion opposite to the warlock was having to go 2-3 days before acquiring enough encounter-free time to recharge. This applies to arcane casters but not, as far as I can tell, to divine casters. So the cleric is whistling, the warlock doesn't notice while the wizard is wondering if he should multiclass to be more useful as an archer. Anyway, this experience broke me of the myth that a psion is useful. I'd still try a wizard or sorcerer again but part of what I was suggestinjg in the first post invovled ways to keep these classes useful in day 2, day 3 and so forth. As mentioned before in this thread, the game is balanced around 4 level appropriate encounters per day and a sufficient rest period between days. Some downtime now and then is also recommended. Being low on rest once in a while is all well and good, but if you are never getting any rest, it is just a campaign designed to make low level arcane casters useless. The whole system of arcane casting (including balance) is based on access to rest periods. Now I admit that my wizard days had the disadvantage of particularily painful house rules (the vitalizing rules from UA so the wizard is always fatigued, spellbooks that you can't scribe into nor can you read another caster's spellbook, enemies who attacked at night while day was bad for resting, strange spell access rules, forced school loses and "overpowered" mobility spells like teleport and mount -- yes, mount -- being banned). But the sorcerer and psion experiences were not an enormous improvement. Under the apparent rest conditions of the campaign they would not be. That being said, a tricked out Druid was toughter than a Warlock so I'll admit that warlocks do not rule the roost completely or any such thing. And various sorts of warriors probably did more damage than the warlocks. Under these conditions arcane casters cannot really be compared to anyone. Start comparing the warlock to other classes and you will see that it is not the warlock that is the problem. Depends on the era in terms of what I have tried. Wizard era -- if it is a utility spell it is probably banned because level 1 wizards are shockingly overpowered. Also, at level up spells only it's hard to get a wide range of spells. You also had to specialize to get access to most good spells in a school and transmutation and conjuration were automatically lost when you specialized unless you picked one of them as a specalist school. Me, I was a conjurer as a result. If you take away rest and spells from a wizard you have a commoner with a better will save. This has nothing to do with the warlock. The process of first taking away spells from the wizard and then trying to make up for him being underpowered in various odd ways is slightly strange in my opinion. Look, the entire arcane caster system is in essence balanced around a broad range of powerful effects useable a limited times a day. The low level wizard make up for his lack of hp, AC, BAB and weapon proficiencies by being a walking library and being able to pull off a few spells every day. Colour Spray and Sleep are powerful spells that can potentially end a low level encounter in one casting. A wizard cannot use them in every encounter, though, since they are not always appropriate and also he has not got the slots for it and so has to choose his moment well. Sorcerer era -- Probably my closest to this. That character was actually doing okay until it got sneak attacked from ambush and died in the surprise round. I had a braod range of spells prepared for this but I wasn't at a level where I could have defenses up 24/7. About 50% of the time when I am a player we have a DM who bans sorcerers which is where the psion comes in (as he is also the one with the above wizard rules). Warlocks can get sneak attacked, too, you know. Again something that does not have to do with the warlock, really. Psion era -- Long, frustrating and painful. I had manifestations like detect thoughts. Could I ever convince myself to risk using them? Almost never. I ended up relying on CHA skills (with an 8 charisma -- Str 8 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha 8 -- turns out this does not qualify for a reroll) and had some success that way. But a Bard would have done way better as a charmisma skill monkey. DM era -- the wizard player switched to a warlock and was way happier. Okay, I made a classic DMing mistake (no matter how logical, having the first level wizard robbed of his spellbook was something I needed to do more gymnastics to avoid). But I don't think that this was decisive. Part of it was that a level 1 wizard feels very weak. The halfling "super-marksman" warlock that followed was thr party MVP for the rest of the campaign. The rest of the party was a cleric, a monk and a bard -- nobody came close to te warlock in either contributions in combat or chances to shine. Classes start their careers at different power levels. Wizards start weak and grows very strong. Warlocks start out strong, as do most melee characters. For the most part low level clerics contribute the most by healing the party; that is invaluable. Monks and bards generally do not start out that strong and do better in a party with a full BAB character available (there are lots of exceptions to this, but that usually demands accomplished players and a well functioning team). Things would probably have looked different if you had a fighter in the party. True but it was something annoying like 10 lbs per level which was enough to shatter an amazing variety of enemy equipment. I beleive it was will saves. Either that or the DM was rolling really badly because only the blackguard ever saved against a shatter. It is a will save, which means that a wizard could have ended most of those encounters with a Colour Spray, for example, with the added benefit of more loot. Finally I have to ask how the party cohesion is working out. One of the major benefits of arcane casters in a party is their ability to help the party, not just their pounding the enemy to dust with spells. If rest conditions are harsh I wonder why the rest of the party does not make sure that the wizard gets to rest, no matter what. If I am a relatively low level fighter up against invisible opponents I want a wizard with Glitterdust, not a warlock that can tell me that the enemy is somewhere over there. If I see 10 orcs running in my direction I want a wizard with Colour Spray, Sleep, Grease, Web or whatever, not a warlock. That is certainly worth an extra shift or two at the camp fire. Protecting and letting the wizard regain his spells is an investment. Low level arcane casters need their party. Warlocks are not as much in need of the party, but on the other hand they cannot help it out as much. Again warlocks and wizards are not really comparable. The warlock simply cannot help a party the same way a wizard can and the wizard does not have the stamina of a warlock.
Squirrelloid 06-07-06, 02:36 PM	Play this: http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=651&postnum=0&highlight=Making%20a%20grapple%20wizard Make the fighter cry.
danielinthewolvesden 06-07-06, 03:13 PM	Votan, listen to what everyone is saying: Your campaign is tailored to making classes that need to recharge crappy. It's as simple as that. The Warlock is not the problem; it's that your game favors all the classes that do not have uses/day abilities that require rest to recharge. The bottom line is that Warlocks are not overpowered - it's that your games do not give Wizards an easy chance to shine. Force the party (in character) to acknowledge your need for rest. Oh, and yes, Clerics do need to rest to regain their spell slots. I generally agree. However, Clerics do not need to rest to regain their slots. From the SRD:Rest: To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells.
Votan 06-07-06, 04:43 PM	Finally I have to ask how the party cohesion is working out. One of the major benefits of arcane casters in a party is their ability to help the party, not just their pounding the enemy to dust with spells. If rest conditions are harsh I wonder why the rest of the party does not make sure that the wizard gets to rest, no matter what. If I am a relatively low level fighter up against invisible opponents I want a wizard with Glitterdust, not a warlock that can tell me that the enemy is somewhere over there. If I see 10 orcs running in my direction I want a wizard with Colour Spray, Sleep, Grease, Web or whatever, not a warlock. That is certainly worth an extra shift or two at the camp fire. Protecting and letting the wizard regain his spells is an investment. Low level arcane casters need their party. Warlocks are not as much in need of the party, but on the other hand they cannot help it out as much. The most common death for a wizard in most games I've played involes scense like this one -- perhaps the worst (two different groups of players and non-overlapping): Wizard: Seeing several Orcs approaching, I begin casting sleep. Monk: I charge and engage an Orc off to the side. Ranger: I take a move action to move back 30 feet and then fire at arrow at the lead Orc Cleric: I cast Sanctuary. Next round I can summon a creature and they won't be able to attack me. DM: Recognizing the strange gestures of a spell, the Orc barbarians rage and charge the wizard. Interestingly, they hit AC 13 just fine (needing a 3 to do so). Please make 2 concentration rolls to maintain the sleep spell . . . Oh wait, are you at negetive seven hit points already? Remember the Sorcerer who died in ambush? The people with higher initiative scattering for cover did not help. Nor did the fact that permanently flying invisible warlocks were possible around this time. :( Now part of it is that Summon Monster and Sleep are hopelessly weak spells for a low level caster unless the melee character involve themselves in extremely active battlefield control. The aggressively anti-wizard house rules phase I at least understood. But playing a wizard even based on out of the book rules can be really painful. Consider a level 1 wizard. Let us say we are munchkins so we take the Elf Generalist from Races of the Wild and take precocious apprentice from Complete Arcane. I've seen this build in my games, actually. It was replaced by a warlock. You have 3 first level spells and one second level spell (in this case scorching ray). You needed a roll to get the 2nd level spell off. Another roll to hit. Both together just never happened. I watched the wizard try and cast a sleep spell (see above). I watched the wizard forced into melee combat because it was the only way to contribute. Meanwhile a warlock is like a machine gun. Firing off a blast every round. The Halfling warlock with 20 dex simply pointed and things suddenly started dying. It was murder. Anyway, I know that anecdotal evidenc eis weak but has anybody actually had a reverse experience? A wizard that added more to a party? Care to share this experience?
Witch 06-07-06, 05:00 PM	Anyway, I know that anecdotal evidenc eis weak but has anybody actually had a reverse experience? A wizard that added more to a party? Care to share this experience? A Wizard at high level totally dominates everything except for Cleric and Druid.
Neeek 06-07-06, 05:14 PM	Anyway, I know that anecdotal evidenc eis weak but has anybody actually had a reverse experience? A wizard that added more to a party? Care to share this experience? Sure. That would be *most* parties. Arcane casters typically provide the fighters with easy to kill and/or less damaging opponents. In the two games I'm in right now, the wizard/sorcerer is *the* most important, powerful member of our team. So much so that after I died for the second time in one of the games, I designed a character around protecting him until he could get his spells off. In your example, for no apparent reason you started within charge range(note your sleep spell has a range of 110 at first level), along with a party that doesn't work at all as a team, combined with you not making sure there was some difficult terrain between you and them.
Votan 06-07-06, 05:27 PM	Sure. That would be *most* parties. Arcane casters typically provide the fighters with easy to kill and/or less damaging opponents. In the two games I'm in right now, the wizard/sorcerer is *the* most important, powerful member of our team. So much so that after I died for the second time in one of the games, I designed a character around protecting him until he could get his spells off. That would be a fun change. In your example, for no apparent reason you started within charge range(note your sleep spell has a range of 110 at first level), along with a party that doesn't work at all as a team, combined with you not making sure there was some difficult terrain between you and them. That particular example was an ambush with the Orcs lurking in trees then charging. Being on a road, I admit that I didn't have a huge amount of terrain to work with. The no team party is a common problem that I encounter, especially with low level parties where the warrior classes (and often the rogues as well) charge. My least favorite player had a ranger and she would wait until I started casting and then unblock on the theory that this would cause opponents to charge the wizard. True, she would get off an arrow or two unmolested. Wizard was dropped every time until I got paranoid and started just running.
Nephlite 06-07-06, 05:32 PM	The most common death for a wizard in most games I've played involes scense like this one -- perhaps the worst (two different groups of players and non-overlapping): Wizard: Seeing several Orcs approaching, I begin casting sleep. Monk: I charge and engage an Orc off to the side. Ranger: I take a move action to move back 30 feet and then fire at arrow at the lead Orc Cleric: I cast Sanctuary. Next round I can summon a creature and they won't be able to attack me. DM: Recognizing the strange gestures of a spell, the Orc barbarians rage and charge the wizard. Interestingly, they hit AC 13 just fine (needing a 3 to do so). Please make 2 concentration rolls to maintain the sleep spell . . . Oh wait, are you at negetive seven hit points already? Wizards need good Initative scores. Slow Wizards are dead wizards. If you saw the Ocs first: Surprise round. They can't charge if not their turn. Plus 110 feet away range. If you are going to be close up: might as well use Colorspray: no HD limit. More effects too.
Fuzzy_Logic 06-07-06, 05:35 PM	I generally agree with everythign said here. EXCEPT-- you cna still power up arcane casters if you really want. I wouldn't, personally-- just following the normal rules should be enough to make them effective. BUT, if you plan to run your game like the past ones, with rest very infrequent and other nerfs to the arcane casters, you SHOULD consider giving them mroe nonspellcasting abilities. however, i think you'll find, even at low levels, arcane caqsters have much mroe impact on the battle than warlocks. Warlocks have a few amazingly powerful abilities availbale, for levle 1 types: summon swarm, while i haven't seen it used, seems veyr very strong at level 1, though it becomes MUCH less useful over time. but that eldritch blast? not dangerous at all. consider: EB requires an attack roll. even with a decent dex, a first-level warlock hits probably no more than half the time. if he's human, he COULD have precise shot. if not, he's in trouble once melee is joined. let's pit him agaisnt the standard goblin warrior form the MM. it's touch AC is, IIRC, 12. thus, a 14 DEX warlock hits 55% of the time. he deals 1d6 damage. the average goblin warrior has 5 HP, so he's probably not killing it in one shot. so, hitting half the time and needing two shots, he'll take 3-4 rounds to kill a single goblin warrior. A wizard, on the other hand, could memorize "sleep." this would make 4 goblins save vs. sleep. if he has 14 INT and spell focus )enchantment), that's DC 14. the goblins hav will 0 or -1, i forget which. so of the four goblins, one will probably save. To sum up: Warlock kills 1 gobline every 3 rounds. Wizard zaps 3 goblins in 1 round. WIZARD IS NINE TIMES AS POWERFUL AS WARLOCK .... as long as he has hte right spells...
Neeek 06-07-06, 05:36 PM	The no team party is a common problem that I encounter, especially with low level parties where the warrior classes (and often the rogues as well) charge. My least favorite player had a ranger and she would wait until I started casting and then unblock on the theory that this would cause opponents to charge the wizard. True, she would get off an arrow or two unmolested. Wizard was dropped every time until I got paranoid and started just running. Are you fing kidding me? Your party ranger used the party *wizard* as a shield? I'm sorry. You're just screwed. With friends like these and all that. Also, you should stick to standard action spells if your party routinely does this sort of BS.
NineInchNall 06-07-06, 05:48 PM	I generally agree. However, Clerics do not need to rest to regain their slots. My bad. :embarrass Wizard: Seeing several Orcs approaching, I begin casting sleep. Monk: I charge and engage an Orc off to the side. Ranger: I take a move action to move back 30 feet and then fire at arrow at the lead Orc Cleric: I cast Sanctuary. Next round I can summon a creature and they won't be able to attack me. DM: Recognizing the strange gestures of a spell, the Orc barbarians rage and charge the wizard. Interestingly, they hit AC 13 just fine (needing a 3 to do so). Please make 2 concentration rolls to maintain the sleep spell . . . Oh wait, are you at negetive seven hit points already? Don't cast 1-round spells without protection. The Cleric was just being smarter than the example Wizard. Said Wizard should also have worked out some tactics with the party so that they could work together with maximal efficacy. Remember the Sorcerer who died in ambush? The people with higher initiative scattering for cover did not help. Nor did the fact that permanently flying invisible warlocks were possible around this time. This is a problem with the party. They are not playing into the team aspect of the game, and the arcane casters are paying the price. If you're going to play a Wizard at low levels, then you need to have some meat shields who are able and willing to do their job of being meat shields. This is just how the game works. Now part of it is that Summon Monster and Sleep are hopelessly weak spells for a low level caster unless the melee character involve themselves in extremely active battlefield control. Summon monster is weak at low levels, period. Sleep can be great as an ambush tactic. Spells in general have situations in which they are exceedingly powerful. That is part of the fun of playing a Wizard, having a wide selection of tools that can be utterly perfect for just about any situation and having to plan accordingly. Just as has been said many times before, a well prepared Wizard is a match for any challenge. A poorly prepared Wizard is boned. A Wizard also has to be tactically savvy. Again, this is part of the challenge and the fun of playing Wizards. Delaying then moving next to the archer and readying a quicker spell like color spray or charm person would have been a much more effective tactic, as would moving to the archer and casting a silent image of nasty spikes or a stone wall, thereby keeping the Wizard himself and the archer safe. Tactics, tactics, tactics. And once more, getting the whole party into thinking tactically is very important for both the Wizard and his party. Consider a level 1 wizard. Let us say we are munchkins so we take the Elf Generalist from Races of the Wild and take precocious apprentice from Complete Arcane. I've seen this build in my games, actually. It was replaced by a warlock. You have 3 first level spells and one second level spell (in this case scorching ray). You needed a roll to get the 2nd level spell off. Another roll to hit. Both together just never happened. I watched the wizard try and cast a sleep spell (see above). I watched the wizard forced into melee combat because it was the only way to contribute. Just bad ideas on the player's part. He should not have chosen scorching ray as his 2nd level spell. He shouldn't have tried to cast sleep while within charging range without some sort of support from his team mates. He certainly shouldn't have gone into melee, not when Wizards are proficient with the light crossbow. Anyway, I know that anecdotal evidenc eis weak but has anybody actually had a reverse experience? A wizard that added more to a party? Care to share this experience? So far every example you've put forth has shown poor decision making on the part of the Wizard player, poor campaign balance, or poor party cohesion. Any one of these is sufficient to make a Wizard feel pooed on. Most of us here have had experiences opposite to those that you relate, for the reasons mentioned above. It takes planning and teamwork for a Wizard to contribute, but when he does it is unquestionably worth it. It's very simple really. The Fighter gets to 20th level by saving the Wizard's ass so many times at 1st level that said Wizard is utterly indebted to said Fighter. Then in the middle levels, the Fighter serves as the physical imposition between the baddies and the Wizard so that the Wizard can blast said baddies to the stone age. At high levels, the Fighter stands near the Wizard, sipping tequila sunrises, watching the fireworks, and hauling off the treasure to pay for the wizard school so that his children can be Wizards instead of Fighters.
Weirgreif 06-07-06, 06:12 PM	The 4 encounters per day issue is fine. But remeber you need to successfully rest to get the recharge. What drove me nuts playing a psion opposite to the warlock was having to go 2-3 days before acquiring enough encounter-free time to recharge. This applies to arcane casters but not, as far as I can tell, to divine casters. So the cleric is whistling, the warlock doesn't notice while the wizard is wondering if he should multiclass to be more useful as an archer. That's...amazing. :eek: Any wizard under my control would start making ad-hoc sanity checks around level three. "I've had four hours of sleep for the past sixteen weeks! *gibber*". I would recommend some action like not playing a caster, but instead a dwarven fighter with Endurance who only sleeps on weekends and carries a backpack full of Dwarven Holy Water that's caffineated as well as alcoholic. It would be an easy thing to roleplay, as you could simulate it out in meatspace. :D I have not played alongside any wizards, but all the sorcerors I've ever seen have vastly out-damaged warlocks. I have not, for example, ever made a 30' radius of creatures make massive damage saves. Scorching Ray can have piles of metamagic as many times as the Sorceror has spell slots, while the Enbiggenate Spell-Like Ability feats work small times per day. The aforementioned fireball maniac also has the spell Wings Of Cover, which grants total cover against an attack, forcing the foe to target someone else; that spell has been life-saving more times than I can count, and it's a group-helping ability that Warlocks will never get. Warlocks have some built-in plot hooks. If the party needs to get dragged into something, remember that the class' abilities are tied to some outside source, either by that character's choice or through ancestry or some such. Will the wizard cast Mind Blank on the warlock every night to keep his grandfather Asmodaeus from whispering in dreams, Nondetection to prevent the annual christmas cards with Geas on it, and Banishment for when relatives show up and start eating the village's souls? :D I do hope some of this helped. When you are traumatized, twist it to your advantage. *nod*
Luske 06-07-06, 06:32 PM	"At high levels, the Fighter stands behind the Wizard, watching the fireworks and then hauls off the loot so that his children can be Wizards instead of Fighters." haha
Archangel62 06-07-06, 07:47 PM	That's...amazing. :eek: Any wizard under my control would start making ad-hoc sanity checks around level three. "I've had four hours of sleep for the past sixteen weeks! *gibber*". I would recommend some action like not playing a caster, but instead a dwarven fighter with Endurance who only sleeps on weekends and carries a backpack full of Dwarven Holy Water that's caffineated as well as alcoholic. It would be an easy thing to roleplay, as you could simulate it out in meatspace. :D I have not played alongside any wizards, but all the sorcerors I've ever seen have vastly out-damaged warlocks. I have not, for example, ever made a 30' radius of creatures make massive damage saves. Scorching Ray can have piles of metamagic as many times as the Sorceror has spell slots, while the Enbiggenate Spell-Like Ability feats work small times per day. The aforementioned fireball maniac also has the spell Wings Of Cover, which grants total cover against an attack, forcing the foe to target someone else; that spell has been life-saving more times than I can count, and it's a group-helping ability that Warlocks will never get. Warlocks have some built-in plot hooks. If the party needs to get dragged into something, remember that the class' abilities are tied to some outside source, either by that character's choice or through ancestry or some such. Will the wizard cast Mind Blank on the warlock every night to keep his grandfather Asmodaeus from whispering in dreams, Nondetection to prevent the annual christmas cards with Geas on it, and Banishment for when relatives show up and start eating the village's souls? :D I do hope some of this helped. When you are traumatized, twist it to your advantage. *nod* Always good to see my players here. :D Anyhow, Votan, your probelm isn't the mechanics, the problem is that your DM has made the warlock the best class by default. If there was a game where everything and its brother had spell turning and reflected those spells back but had a regular ac of 2 Fighters and Barbarians look obscenely powerful. That and if you EVER want to see an effective wizard or Sorcerer I'll PM you my designs, Either the warper or the crippler, both were quite amusing.
belthazzar1113 06-07-06, 08:10 PM	votan. your playing games at 3rd level or lower. arcane casters suck below level 5. no way around it. your dm sounds like they hate magic and want it to be as hard to use as possible. your going to have to acept the fact that no one should use magic in this game. With that many house rules stacked up against mages i would just call it a day and reroll a frenzied berzerker to show exactly how broken i can make a non magic character. this thread isn't about "can we make the wizard equal to the warlock" its a thread whining about a set of circumstances designed to make wizards suck and sorcs blow that doesn't affect the warlock. Warlocks and wizards are balanced, they both have roles and both have uses. Your game is the exception to this and personally i think you should just outright ban wizards and get it over with. if you seriously have that much of an issue with magic then just play iron heroes or something so you can forget magic exsists completely. unfortunitly this thread has degenerated into people honestly trying to prove a point that doesn't even exist. this is about your game and your problem that no one else has because we don't let DMS get away with this kind of crap.
Bringer of autumn 06-07-06, 08:42 PM	Guys Guys Guys....we can fix this problem by starting wiz&sorc's off with a masterwork MG-42!
epyondrowhunter 06-07-06, 09:20 PM	lol wow. wow. wow. wow. wow. lol. lol. sorry... ok go ahead and do those things and tell ur players that. i garuntee there will never be a single person to ever play with you again to not play a wizard or sorceror. ever. i mean that would effectively make them pretty much comparable to the abilitys of all the other classes PLUS, there spell casting witch made them either equal or superior to the other classes to began with. the warlock is not better then the sorceror or wizard in any way. except in maybe an anti-magic zone. for instance. a 6h level sorceror or wizard is already more powerful in a combat concept. and more then likely could beat a warlock out in the lower levels. not that the warlock is bad, ur just giving it a million and one times more credit then it desearves.
Votan 06-07-06, 10:15 PM	this thread isn't about "can we make the wizard equal to the warlock" its a thread whining about a set of circumstances designed to make wizards suck and sorcs blow that doesn't affect the warlock. Warlocks and wizards are balanced, they both have roles and both have uses. Your game is the exception to this and personally i think you should just outright ban wizards and get it over with. if you seriously have that much of an issue with magic then just play iron heroes or something so you can forget magic exsists completely. There are, I admit, two issues here. 1) I loathe the warlock and it kind of leaks out. Mostly because of bad play experience. Other players that I game with definitely do not agree with me about this and see the warlock as a balanced class while the wizard is (to quote one player) "an NPC class beaten in weakness only by the commoner and even then its marginal". 2) I am very pro-arcanist and I want to see more of them. I think that they are fun. After a lot of bad experiences with wizards, I think that people are gun shy about trying one again. After the worst set of house rules (by a DM who was super against arcane casters but, no word of a lie, had house rules to toughen up clerics by giving them access to weapons and armor not normally available to, for example, fighters) I could see nobody trying to be a wizard. Many spells are unavailable. It's nearly impossible to get transmutation or conjuration spells. Casting a spell or two causes wizards to be fatigued. It's impossible to get extra spells beyond level up and sleeping is hard and so forth. But other bad experiences from tactics (including mine, to be frank, I am not always as good at gaming optimisation as I wish I were) has just left the classes tainted. People who have an arcane concept or idea just go warlock. I'd love to see a wizard or sorcerer shine. Heck, just not being an embarrassment would be a nice change. :-/ Otherwise the default would be arcane = warlock (and see point #1). It's true that the original post had a rather "radical" fix for this problem. But, to be honest, can you see a wizard or sorcerer with these characteristics feeling too weak to be useful? Unable to make a contribution? Maybe but then it will be due to circumstances that I cannot control from the DM's chair. Anyway, I am not going to rotate in soon but I am at the point of thinking about "how can I solve this problem". If it had come out before this game my personal solution would be the Duskblade. Controversial as it is, I like the class and see it as a way to make a non-warlock arcanist that can successfully contribute to a party. Another option would be the Battlesorcerer but the time that I wanted to play one the DM banned sorcerers completely and suggested a warlock instead. :mad: You can guess hwo that went over . . . So I tried a psion.
Archangel62 06-07-06, 11:11 PM	My personal reccomendation is to find another group...Soon. Honestly the way that the DM has this game set up it's so radically different and radically weakens the arcane classes that it's not even funny. Did he keep wizards from gaining new spells and locked off spells from their list? If so then he royally screwed over those classes, no wonder they're weaker with all the modifications he made. And he unnecesarilly amped the cleric. If you want help to amp the wizard or sorcerer contact me and I'll help. But if he's going to nuke the arcane casters that badly then it doesn't much matter. The warlock works well in that scenario but it doesn't help that your DM is ignoring rules to intentionally screw over arcane casters. I could tell you dozens of tricks used by both my players and by me. Duskblade is cool, but the best way for you to run a sorc or wizard is to make them into debuffer squadrons.
mrurbanitesmiley 06-07-06, 11:28 PM	OF COURSE your sorc. sucks in comparison to the Warlock. You're a level 3-4 white dragonspawn Sorc. I don't know what a Dragonspawn is, but I assume it has an ECL of either 1 or 2. So, at 3rd level you're casting spells as a 2nd or 1st level sorc. It's not a matter of you being useless because Warlocks are OMG BORK!, but rather the fact that ECL screws over any primary spellcaster. That's it. Also, -1 con/level is the most ridiculous rule I've ever heard. If you seriously consider implementing that I'm glad I don't play with you, and never ever will.
Votan 06-07-06, 11:33 PM	OF COURSE your sorc. sucks in comparison to the Warlock. You're a level 3-4 white dragonspawn Sorc. I don't know what a Dragonspawn is, but I assume it has an ECL of either 1 or 2. So, at 3rd level you're casting spells as a 2nd or 1st level sorc. It's not a matter of you being useless because Warlocks are OMG BORK!, but rather the fact that ECL screws over any primary spellcaster. That's it. White Dragonspawn is ECL one but adds one level to Sorcerer casting so you cast as a sorcerer of your ECL while getting +2 con, +2 dex, natural armor and other goodies. Sickeningly broken and I was guilty taking it initially.
Jell_Moo 06-07-06, 11:39 PM	Ok, I tried posting once already, but my horrible internet connection destroyed it. Time to try again... Maybe I can offer some insight to the issue. I game with Votan, and have been present in all of the situations he has mentioned. I will start by saying that I don't agree with his feeling that the Warlock is overpowered, but I do agree with his assessment of the facts, and I can see how he has arrived at his conclusion given our group experience. Game 1: Votan had just given up the DM chair (our group works on a rotating DM basis) and was eager to play himself an arcane caster. However, things kinda went sour with the new DM. To start with, The majority of classes were outright banned, and the races had been brought down to two. Human and Dwarf. Warning sounds of course went off at this point. Votan though, was determined to play an Arcane caster. Since the Sorcerer was banned, this meant a Wizard. Also, since Dwarves couldn't be Wizards, this meant a human. Now, you have to take into account the various nerfs put upon the Wizard class: - When the Wizard cast too many spells, he would be fatgued and then exhausted. - Scribing new spells was something of a pipedream. - The school specialization system was redone so that either you were a Conjurer, or you were pretty much useless. Still, he was desperate to make it work, and I'll give him credit, he tried in a situation where I would have long given up. (Of course, I was stuck with the garbage that is a Divine Bard, so I wasn't much better off...) The issue here was that the Wizard class in this world had absolutely everything stacked against it. This was in comparison with the Cleric that had everything spoon fed to it and more. The DM, while really great at crafting an interesting and rich game world, had a huge weakness when it came to plotting game mechanics. He made changes that made sense from a flavor perspective, but were a mechanical nightmare. In the end it was because he put the 'purity' of the game world ahead of player fun that the game died. So yes, in this instance, the Wizard sucked. Then again, everything other than a Cleric pretty much sucked too. As a side note, I don't believe that Complete Arcane had come out as of yet, so the Warlock wasn't an option. Game 2: This was a one off module (the Sunless Citadel) that I DMed in order to test the waters with a pair of new players. In this game, we saw the Warlock in play for the very first time. The result? Due to bad feat and Invocation selection, the Warlock was fairly useless. The group did not have any other primary caster to compare with though, but from that experience, I was under the impression that the Warlock was sub-par (well, that's what I thouht at the time). Game 3: The DM from the first game took over again, only this time we were set in the setting of Ghostwalk. Votan wanted to play a Battle Sorcerer, however the DM, who has a hatred of Sorcerers, outlawed the class, and proclaimed the Warlock the new Sorcerer (I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of Votan's animosity towards the class stems from this incident). So, still wanting to play a caster, Votan played a Psion. The dude that played the Warlock in the one off decided to play another one, and had a similar setup of bad feat and Invocation choices. Now, in this case, both the Warlock and the Psion were underacheivers. The problems were very different though. The Warlock couldn't hit a thing with his Eldritch Blast (I am now convinced that PRecise Shot is an absolute must for a Warlock), and in general was way more trouble than he was worth. The Psion, however, had a few issues. Votan had built the Psion as a Manipulator/Telepath of sorts (I can't remember if he was actually a Telepath or not). This of course meant that the lion's share of his powers were mind-effecting. It was a cool and pretty flavorful character. However, the downside was that we fought nothing except for undead and Clerics with super high Will saves. The end result was that he had 2 powers that could be used in most situations. Energy Push (I believe) and Astral Construct. Energy Push was made almost useless due to the fact that every single creature it was ever used against made it's save (to the point that I suspect the DM may have been fudging the rolls). However, what happened was that Votan used almost all of his power points (I believe he had 1 left that he was jealously hoarding) and then the party simply never got a full 8 hours of uninterupted rest, meaning that he never recovered his power points, meaning that he essentially was a commoner. It was an ugly experience, and I can see how it would have soured him on Psions. However, I would say that the Warlock was really no better. (But I would say that he certainly *could* have been better). Game 4: Votan was the DM this time. I was the Wizatd. Let me start by saying that I saw a few people post proclaiming that I was innefectual in the role. I would ounter that hindsight is 20/20, and for the life of me, I can't see how anyone could have done better. Here's the setup. As a 1st level Wizard, I had 2 spells prepared. Spell slot 1 went to Mage Armor. This was never cast on myself, this one went on the party Monk, so that she wouldn't be dropped in the first round of combat. That left 1 slot. The game became to try and guess which spell to prepare beforehand. Let me explain situation 1. - In this situation, I had Color Spray prepared. Seemed like a good, solid choice. However, it turned out to be about the worst spell I could have picked. Adventuring underground, the party came upon a bottleneck where only 1 character could stand at a time. Turns out that on the other side was a large group of Kobolds. With the Wizard dead last in the marching order, he had 3 companions in front of him, and only Color Spray to work with. (I had and cast, I believe, 3 Daze cantrips). In this situation, I had picked badly, and was therefore pretty useless. - In the next situation, after having seen what happens when I prepare Color Spray, I decided to prepare Sleep instead. Bad idea. The party was ambushed by ORc Barbarians. Turns out that these things can charge up to 80ft. At this point, I had 2 choices. 1- Run away as my party was mauled. or 2 - Try and help. I went with the second choice. This is how the battle went. Wizard (wins initiative) - I start casting Sleep! Monk (10 Str, 8 Con) - I charge an Orc! Bard - I move and try and Trip an Orc with my whip (no Trip feats of course). Cleric - I posititon myself so that in a few rounds, I can cast Burning Hands (Domain) to the best possible effect. Orcs, see lone Wizard waving hands as party abandons him, charge. Wizard = Mulch With that horrible character behind me (only a masochist would play a low level Wizard) I rerolled as a Strongheart Halfling Warlock. I tricked him out so that he used his Eldritch Blast to maximum effect. (Precise Shot and through the roof Dex). Now, Votan claims he was the party MVP, but I don't remember him being quite *that* impressive. However, taken in stride with the rest of the party (a weak as a kitten Monk, a fairly useless Bard who liked to use a whip, and a Cleric who spent rounds aiming a Burning Hands spell) then yeah, the Warlock did shine. Also, I would note that this was a brutally difficult campaign, and one where a Wizard was a pretty bad choice. Game 5: This one I was the DM of. To start with, it was a very atypical game that was mostly an experiment and an excuse to be silly. It was a humour based game where the players got to play monsters and then go out and attack humans. Votan, still wanting to play an Arcane caster, played a Demon Elf thingie that was a Generalist Spellcaster from UA. Essentially, I tossed him a few bones (and tossed a few to the rest of the party) and he had what I would think could be considered the ultimate spellcaster. Now, something to note was that I had, at the start, offered to DM without a screen. The caveat was that anything I rolled, stood. No take backs, no fudging. With that in mind... Votan missed a session, and his character was being played by another player (Votan's decision, not mine). In that game, the party was ambushed by a group of invisible Rogues with bows. The battle went something like this: - Draconian (the tank) - I lie prone so I'm harder to hit. - Ogre Mage (heavy hitter) - I turn Invisible and Fly up. - Drider (Cleric) - My memory is a little fuzzy, but I think she climbed a tree. And then, because of an absolutely pathetic roll for initiative, Votan's character had to wait for the Rogues to act. With only one easily accessible target, it seemed logical to go after the Demon Elf thingie. Attack 1: I roll a 20. Crit is then confirmed... Critical hit + Sneak Attack brings the character down to something like 7 hit points. Attack 2: I roll another 20. Once again, confirmed. Critical hit + Sneak Attack brings the character down to something like -17 hit points. And that was then end of the Spellcaster... --- So yes, I see what Votan is saying about the Warlock, but I think he has attacked the wrong subject. The Warlock isn't overpowered, its: - One DM has it out for Arcane casters, but likes the Warlock. - Low level Wizards and Sorcerers are pitifully weak, especially when not adequately protected. - Our group has the collective tactical ability of a cabbage. Now, I'm not badmouthing our group. They're all fine players, I think the world of them, and I have seen some truly brilliant roleplaying. But when it comes to optimization and tactics, they simply don't excel. So where does that leave us? Votan and disagree on the power level of the Warlock (which is fine since we tend to agree on most other D&D related issues). If I DM again, I fully intend on making the game as Arcane friendly as possible, with no hidden nerfs and boutiful rest time. If, on the other hand, somebody else is DMing, then I have a really neat idea for a trick Fighter that could park himself beside the Arcane Caster and make sure that he is nice and safe. :D
Votan 06-07-06, 11:43 PM	My personal reccomendation is to find another group...Soon. Honestly the way that the DM has this game set up it's so radically different and radically weakens the arcane classes that it's not even funny. Did he keep wizards from gaining new spells and locked off spells from their list? If so then he royally screwed over those classes, no wonder they're weaker with all the modifications he made. And he unnecesarilly amped the cleric. If you want help to amp the wizard or sorcerer contact me and I'll help. But if he's going to nuke the arcane casters that badly then it doesn't much matter. The warlock works well in that scenario but it doesn't help that your DM is ignoring rules to intentionally screw over arcane casters. I could tell you dozens of tricks used by both my players and by me. Duskblade is cool, but the best way for you to run a sorc or wizard is to make them into debuffer squadrons. Well, my group typically rotates among 3 DMs. The anti-arcane DM has simply taught me to play a cleric. Clerics get roleplaying and martial equipment advantages over fighters plus other goodies. The other Dm who isn't me plays a very solid campaign but puts a premium on creative characters and some cool adventures. This one I think i coulod have done better in and, next time he comes up I'll try. At the moment we are off doing something a little different and I'll probably be up to DMing next. In my most successful game, except for one psion, everybody was a +1 BAB melee class. That didn't show much except that adventure design is freaky when the party healer is a Paladin. The other wasn't so good as I did make a mistake with the wizard and the warlock performed exceptionally well once he replaced the dead wizard. I want to amp up the arcane casters or gimp the warlock in order to try and bring them back to the table. I thought about starting a higher level. I thought about an aggressive anti-warlock penalty but that seemed to interfere with fun (and thus was nixed). But I want a way to bring them back so that people have fun playing them or that they are so interesting that people just decide to give them a try! Since I expect to be the DM in this case, no anti-arcane house rules are coming any time soon. In fact, I was thinking about being as close to baseline rules as possible. But I'd love to tempt one or two arcanes and see if people could have a good time playing these classes. I don't want it to be humilating, but it would be pleasant if people risked an arcane class and found themselves shining as a result. If I end up playing between now and my next DM session (unlikely), I will almost certainly try a Duskblade as a compromise arcane option. But I'd see ideas to enhance a wizard or a sorcerer as extremely on topic. After all, if the baseline classes could be made to work well then that would be better than massive enhancement. But I am frustrated enough that I was closer to the mods in the inital post than you might think!
Xavon_Wrentaile 06-07-06, 11:45 PM	<colbert>If you want to make the Wizard equal to the Warlock, start by limiting the Wizard's spells known by Int (ala 2E), and remove the bonus feat at tenth level. That would be a good start.</colbert> I can't pay my players to be Warlocks. I played one as my DM character, and was spending much of my free time trying to strengthen the class. When that character got killed, I had much more time.
Votan 06-07-06, 11:58 PM	<colbert>If you want to make the Wizard equal to the Warlock, start by limiting the Wizard's spells known by Int (ala 2E), and remove the bonus feat at tenth level. That would be a good start.</colbert> I can't pay my players to be Warlocks. I played one as my DM character, and was spending much of my free time trying to strengthen the class. When that character got killed, I had much more time. :confused: Wow. How did that work? What level was this at? What was the key weakness that you were trying to bolster? Did your players play arcane casters other than the warlock? Where they better able to hold their own? This is so contrary to my experience that it probably (at least partially) reflects the range of camapign styles.
Archangel62 06-08-06, 12:36 AM	The key weakness the warlock possesses is as thus: At high levels they become little more than placeholders unless played by competent players. One of the guys in my game (he spoke earlier in this thread and his sig mentions his character) plays a warlock. The sorcerer will always out-damage him and do it to more enemies per hit. The warlock plays Counter-Caster by holding actions until the BBEG caster is casting, then he shoots to try to force a concentration check to disrupt. He worked as part of the team. If he had been their only artillerypiece the Lich would have nuked the party twelve ways from sunday because they couldn't have dealt with him beyond trying to charge through and hope for the best. The sorcerer also has better spells to help the entire party both in terms of damage as well as in tactical casting. The warlock plays crowd control with the occaisional chilling trauma and a bit of "Just try and hit me with those ranged attacks...oh yeah they bounce off" His power comes from the rest of the team. The problem is that your view of the warlock is so twisted because the game that you're in is so severely messed up it's honestly sad. Part of your problem too is that at least one DM cheated by what you mentioned and also your party seems to have no method whatsoever of coordination or teamwork. Heck, depending on your area I might even be able to help.
Votan 06-08-06, 12:40 AM	Hey Dude -- great to see you back on the boards!!!! :) Ok, I tried posting once already, but my horrible internet connection destroyed it. Time to try again... Maybe I can offer some insight to the issue. I game with Votan, and have been present in all of the situations he has mentioned. I will start by saying that I don't agree with his feeling that the Warlock is overpowered, but I do agree with his assessment of the facts, and I can see how he has arrived at his conclusion given our group experience. Okay. Game 1: Votan had just given up the DM chair (our group works on a rotating DM basis) and was eager to play himself an arcane caster. However, things kinda went sour with the new DM. To start with, The majority of classes were outright banned, and the races had been brought down to two. Human and Dwarf. Warning sounds of course went off at this point. Votan though, was determined to play an Arcane caster. Since the Sorcerer was banned, this meant a Wizard. Also, since Dwarves couldn't be Wizards, this meant a human. Now, you have to take into account the various nerfs put upon the Wizard class: - When the Wizard cast too many spells, he would be fatgued and then exhausted. - Scribing new spells was something of a pipedream. - The school specialization system was redone so that either you were a Conjurer, or you were pretty much useless. Still, he was desperate to make it work, and I'll give him credit, he tried in a situation where I would have long given up. (Of course, I was stuck with the garbage that is a Divine Bard, so I wasn't much better off...) The issue here was that the Wizard class in this world had absolutely everything stacked against it. This was in comparison with the Cleric that had everything spoon fed to it and more. The DM, while really great at crafting an interesting and rich game world, had a huge weakness when it came to plotting game mechanics. He made changes that made sense from a flavor perspective, but were a mechanical nightmare. In the end it was because he put the 'purity' of the game world ahead of player fun that the game died. So yes, in this instance, the Wizard sucked. Then again, everything other than a Cleric pretty much sucked too. As a side note, I don't believe that Complete Arcane had come out as of yet, so the Warlock wasn't an option. Yes. But that was the horrible game where the Ranger used the wizard as a human shield when fighting a large group of humanoids (hobgoblins) and I watched my wizard get cut down trying to cast a sleep spell. The ranger did, however, get to shine by sniping as the foe focused on the wizard. Fortunately, this player is no longer around. But boy was it brutal. Game 2: This was a one off module (the Sunless Citadel) that I DMed in order to test the waters with a pair of new players. In this game, we saw the Warlock in play for the very first time. The result? Due to bad feat and Invocation selection, the Warlock was fairly useless. The group did not have any other primary caster to compare with though, but from that experience, I was under the impression that the Warlock was sub-par (well, that's what I thouht at the time). Okay, yes that was somewhat the case of the underperforming warlock. I had kind of forgotten about that adventure but he did have a lot of trouble contributing, didn't he? Of course, I was playing an elf paladin-archer, there was a half orc ranger (the surprise star player) and a soulblade so it wasn't the standard party mix by far. Game 3: The DM from the first game took over again, only this time we were set in the setting of Ghostwalk. Votan wanted to play a Battle Sorcerer, however the DM, who has a hatred of Sorcerers, outlawed the class, and proclaimed the Warlock the new Sorcerer (I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of Votan's animosity towards the class stems from this incident). So, still wanting to play a caster, Votan played a Psion. The dude that played the Warlock in the one off decided to play another one, and had a similar setup of bad feat and Invocation choices. Now, in this case, both the Warlock and the Psion were underacheivers. The problems were very different though. The Warlock couldn't hit a thing with his Eldritch Blast (I am now convinced that PRecise Shot is an absolute must for a Warlock), and in general was way more trouble than he was worth. The Psion, however, had a few issues. Votan had built the Psion as a Manipulator/Telepath of sorts (I can't remember if he was actually a Telepath or not). This of course meant that the lion's share of his powers were mind-effecting. It was a cool and pretty flavorful character. However, the downside was that we fought nothing except for undead and Clerics with super high Will saves. The end result was that he had 2 powers that could be used in most situations. Energy Push (I believe) and Astral Construct. Energy Push was made almost useless due to the fact that every single creature it was ever used against made it's save (to the point that I suspect the DM may have been fudging the rolls). However, what happened was that Votan used almost all of his power points (I believe he had 1 left that he was jealously hoarding) and then the party simply never got a full 8 hours of uninterupted rest, meaning that he never recovered his power points, meaning that he essentially was a commoner. It was an ugly experience, and I can see how it would have soured him on Psions. However, I would say that the Warlock was really no better. (But I would say that he certainly *could* have been better). Yeah, it was a telepath with a 14 point buy equivalent stats. This was also the game where the DM banned "table talk" so I could not say things like "wait, you are opening up the telepath to a charge attack from the undead". I blew my last power point flanking the Blackguard (Jell-Moo had a custom class-- kind of a neat Bardic assassin -- in disguise and next to the enemy). After that I was a 12 dex archer with poor BAB. This might have been better except that usually archery feats help. He died being picked off by skeleton archers with no sign of power points ever returning. He was replaced with an Elf Druid who was probably my favorite D&D character to date despite never (once) wildshaping. Game 4: Votan was the DM this time. I was the Wizatd. Let me start by saying that I saw a few people post proclaiming that I was innefectual in the role. I would ounter that hindsight is 20/20, and for the life of me, I can't see how anyone could have done better. Here's the setup. As a 1st level Wizard, I had 2 spells prepared. Spell slot 1 went to Mage Armor. This was never cast on myself, this one went on the party Monk, so that she wouldn't be dropped in the first round of combat. That left 1 slot. The game became to try and guess which spell to prepare beforehand. Let me explain situation 1. - In this situation, I had Color Spray prepared. Seemed like a good, solid choice. However, it turned out to be about the worst spell I could have picked. Adventuring underground, the party came upon a bottleneck where only 1 character could stand at a time. Turns out that on the other side was a large group of Kobolds. With the Wizard dead last in the marching order, he had 3 companions in front of him, and only Color Spray to work with. (I had and cast, I believe, 3 Daze cantrips). In this situation, I had picked badly, and was therefore pretty useless. - In the next situation, after having seen what happens when I prepare Color Spray, I decided to prepare Sleep instead. Bad idea. The party was ambushed by ORc Barbarians. Turns out that these things can charge up to 80ft. At this point, I had 2 choices. 1- Run away as my party was mauled. or 2 - Try and help. I went with the second choice. This is how the battle went. Wizard (wins initiative) - I start casting Sleep! Monk (10 Str, 8 Con) - I charge an Orc! Bard - I move and try and Trip an Orc with my whip (no Trip feats of course). Cleric - I posititon myself so that in a few rounds, I can cast Burning Hands (Domain) to the best possible effect. Orcs, see lone Wizard waving hands as party abandons him, charge. Wizard = Mulch With that horrible character behind me (only a masochist would play a low level Wizard) I rerolled as a Strongheart Halfling Warlock. I tricked him out so that he used his Eldritch Blast to maximum effect. (Precise Shot and through the roof Dex). Now, Votan claims he was the party MVP, but I don't remember him being quite *that* impressive. However, taken in stride with the rest of the party (a weak as a kitten Monk, a fairly useless Bard who liked to use a whip, and a Cleric who spent rounds aiming a Burning Hands spell) then yeah, the Warlock did shine. Also, I would note that this was a brutally difficult campaign, and one where a Wizard was a pretty bad choice. Here I screwed up. This was also the game where a level 1 wizard lost his spellbook to bandits. No excuses, it was a bad call on my part. I paid a lot of attention to the warlock and, by the end, he was doing the majority of the killing. Now the monk was getting mobbed, the cleric was setting up a lot of burning hands attacks at level 3 and the bard never did successfully trip anybody. But the warlock tore into people like mad for 2d6+1 (point blank shot) + bardic song bonuses every bloody round. It was a very, very effective character and, after the wizard, looked very bad. And I watched the tactics that Jell-Moo tried. We discussed them afterwards. I was disappointed with the wizard and it actually led to some of my favorite pro-sorcerer posts showing how a level 1 sorcerer contributes a lot more than a level 1 wizard. Oh yes -- in several games I have watched the 80 foot charge of a Barbarian make a 1 round casting time sleep spell highly risky as they could also walk out of range and then there is the lob the javelin trick which also can do harm. The worst part was the wizard always ends up uncovered as party members peel away. It wasn't up to the epic human shield days of the ranger but it was a bad thing to be both fragile and dangerous. It was also a very high calibrated game and I should have realized that it wouldn't work as well as expected. i was adapting return to keep on the borderlands but some monsters (Bulette) were not designed for level 1 to 3 play it turns out. Game 5: This one I was the DM of. To start with, it was a very atypical game that was mostly an experiment and an excuse to be silly. It was a humour based game where the players got to play monsters and then go out and attack humans. Votan, still wanting to play an Arcane caster, played a Demon Elf thingie that was a Generalist Spellcaster from UA. Essentially, I tossed him a few bones (and tossed a few to the rest of the party) and he had what I would think could be considered the ultimate spellcaster. Now, something to note was that I had, at the start, offered to DM without a screen. The caveat was that anything I rolled, stood. No take backs, no fudging. With that in mind... Votan missed a session, and his character was being played by another player (Votan's decision, not mine). In that game, the party was ambushed by a group of invisible Rogues with bows. The battle went something like this: - Draconian (the tank) - I lie prone so I'm harder to hit. - Ogre Mage (heavy hitter) - I turn Invisible and Fly up. - Drider (Cleric) - My memory is a little fuzzy, but I think she climbed a tree. And then, because of an absolutely pathetic roll for initiative, Votan's character had to wait for the Rogues to act. With only one easily accessible target, it seemed logical to go after the Demon Elf thingie. Attack 1: I roll a 20. Crit is then confirmed... Critical hit + Sneak Attack brings the character down to something like 7 hit points. Attack 2: I roll another 20. Once again, confirmed. Critical hit + Sneak Attack brings the character down to something like -17 hit points. And that was then end of the Spellcaster... I actually hadn't realized that the rest of the party had evaded like that. Now that you mention it, I'll admit that this is all perfectly in character. Okay, this was a bit unavoidable. Whagt I do remember is that the person playing the Demon Elf (who played him perfectly in RP situations -- better than I could) had not put up any of my hour per level buffs so I had wondered if a better outcome was possible. But the tank dropping prone explains thigns a bit better. So yes, I see what Votan is saying about the Warlock, but I think he has attacked the wrong subject. The Warlock isn't overpowered, its: - One DM has it out for Arcane casters, but likes the Warlock. - Low level Wizards and Sorcerers are pitifully weak, especially when not adequately protected. - Our group has the collective tactical ability of a cabbage. Now, I'm not badmouthing our group. They're all fine players, I think the world of them, and I have seen some truly brilliant roleplaying. But when it comes to optimization and tactics, they simply don't excel. So where does that leave us? Votan and disagree on the power level of the Warlock (which is fine since we tend to agree on most other D&D related issues). If I DM again, I fully intend on making the game as Arcane friendly as possible, with no hidden nerfs and boutiful rest time. If, on the other hand, somebody else is DMing, then I have a really neat idea for a trick Fighter that could park himself beside the Arcane Caster and make sure that he is nice and safe. :D I agree -- the roleplaying is amazing. Some real work goes into interesting and three dimensional characters that are a delight to see develop. But good gods have I had trouble with arcanes. The previous game to all of this (game zero) was really fun. The core group for msot of it was a ranger (eventually powerful werecreature), Druid (later a Psion) and a half dragon Paladin. In the last few sessions they acquired a cleric but it was hard to generalize cleric performance (new players so I dumped prepared casting and simply told her to select her spells as she casts them and not to go over the slot totals). But I will admit to disliking the Warlock. Jell-Moo (who I respect alot) is actually the person who talked me out of the simple -1 con per warlock level solution as being unfair.
Mirikon 06-08-06, 01:23 AM	If you think the wizard is weak compared to the warlock, then you've never played a warlock past level 5. Wizards and sorcerers need nothing mechanically to make them superior to warlocks. Sorcerers need more flavor, but that's another argument entirely.
Lotus Crane 06-08-06, 02:07 AM	It's really interesting how repeatedly, and seemingly unavoidably, you've had bad circumstances that make the wizard seem gimped compared to the warlock. If we're trading anecdotes here, mine would be just the opposite. I was co-DMing a campaign a while back, and one of the recurring villains was a halfling warlock that came to be known as the "Death Jester." However, as a villain NPC, rather than having multiple encounters every day, he would basically appear once every few sessions (or once every other adventure). Under those conditions, his "infinite use" ability was effectively irrelevant, and it really hurt that he was only capable of dealing half as much damage per round (and thus, half as much per encounter) as a real arcanist would. As time went by, the only way to make the Death Jester pose any sort of threat to the party was to make him much higher level, in fact, despite being intended mostly as just an annoyance, he was habitually higher ECL than the BBEG of each adventure. Again, had he been a sorcerer or wizard of that ECL, he would have easily been capable of killing one or more PC's per round (generally, a 40d6 disintegrate in the first round of combat, is a bigger threat than a 10d6 eldritch blast every round for 4 rounds, since the Death Jester would be killed or forced to retreat before then anyway). But as you might realize, the circumstances were the exact opposite. 1) (As a NPC) the Death Jester had to wait through long (multiple-session) rest periods, even though he didn't actually need them. The PC party (which included a sorcerer) also had more than adequate rest time, and access to cities and magic shops, so they didn't suffer from any of the anti-arcane restrictions you have. 2) The Death Jester often had allies or hirelings who actually used intelligent tactics, such as protecting whoever their real arcanist was, while the Death Jester was prone to flying around in the air by himself, which wasn't such a smart idea when the PC's were capable of being flying grapplers. 3) Battles were generally on a much larger scale, with 7 PC's and a corresponding increase in the number of NPC's, and thus, buffs, utility spells, and area effects had a much bigger impact than the generally short-range, single-target eldritch blast (blast templates help, but still generally aren't as good as a dedicated AoE spell).
Broken vacuum 06-08-06, 05:39 AM	It is always nice to get more than one view on something like this and it seems like most our assessments about the situation were correct. So yes, I see what Votan is saying about the Warlock, but I think he has attacked the wrong subject. The Warlock isn't overpowered, its: - One DM has it out for Arcane casters, but likes the Warlock. Yes, but with rotating DMs this should be fixable at least most of the time. - Low level Wizards and Sorcerers are pitifully weak, especially when not adequately protected. The latter part of your statement is the really important part to consider. Low level arcane casters need protection from the group so that they can contribute when they are really needed. Part of the main melee character's role in combat is to make sure that non-melee oriented characters do not have to enter melee. It is of course a team effort; other characters cannot just stand around, but the melee people are there to make it easier. - Our group has the collective tactical ability of a cabbage. It seems like it. Also there seems to be not just a lack of team tactics, but a rather frequent suboptimal use of spells. Unfortunate choices for memorisation happens, that is part of the fun with wizards, but even allowing for the occasional hyperbole in Votan's stories, things seems to be far worse than that. Low level wizards are frail and the first order of business is to make sure that big bruisers do not get within melee range. Starting to cast a spell with a one round casting time when there is a clear avenue for charge is not a good idea. Low level wizards frequently do not have adequate spells memorised. Moving away in a suitable direction in order to create more favourable conditions for the spells that are available is always an option; mostly you can also get a shot off with your crossbow. Since this group seems to not work quite right in the team tactic department, consider learning Expeditious Retreat; cast and move 60ft is a good defensive option in a lot of circumstances. So where does that leave us? Votan and disagree on the power level of the Warlock (which is fine since we tend to agree on most other D&D related issues). If I DM again, I fully intend on making the game as Arcane friendly as possible, with no hidden nerfs and boutiful rest time. If, on the other hand, somebody else is DMing, then I have a really neat idea for a trick Fighter that could park himself beside the Arcane Caster and make sure that he is nice and safe. :D That is how it is done. Should do marvels for the efficacy of arcane casters and consequently the group.
Votan 06-08-06, 09:51 AM	Low level wizards are frail and the first order of business is to make sure that big bruisers do not get within melee range. Starting to cast a spell with a one round casting time when there is a clear avenue for charge is not a good idea. To be honest, one issue is that both Jell_Moo and I have tried one round casting time spells seeing good defensive positions and been surprised to see the party maneaver to make charges possible. The cleric with burning hads was an example. It might go against my point a bit, but the one time I successfully neutralized the Warlock as a DM was when the party did it's typical "move to unblock the arcanist" tactics. The cleric actually ate attacks of opportunity to move and open up an avenue for charging. It's true that he hit 3 or 4 Kobolds with one burning hands spell which did make a big difference (as it killed everybody it hit). It needed to because the warlock immediately got swarmed by a horde of Kobold grapplers. The monk, of course, was being surrounded and cut up on the other side of the battlefield and the bard was actually cut down as well a round later (he moved back out of the way and tried to trip but ended up disarmed and chased down by a single Kobold that I couldn't figure out how to attack the warlock with). Needless to say, casting a spell in place is suicide under these circumstances but you saw the agony Jell_moo went through when suddenly this was the right spell but it wasn't prepared. As the wizard, I've watched the Ranger (remember this horrible period?) unblock charging lanes and had to make tough choices (like falling to the ground and pretending to be dead -- a surprising amount of the time when there are only 2 fighters in the party and you face a circular ambush the wizard will be dead on the ground next round anyway so why not save time?). Another part of the problem was what you have prepared as spells. If you have sleep and there is no good defensive terrain while the party is circled (an exceedingly common encounter in our games -- especially in my wizard days when the enemy always had darkvision and attacked at night from ambush) you have tough choices to make. If most such weapons had not been banned (i.e. reach weapons), a spiked chain fighter standing next to the wizard with "improved trip" might have made an enormous difference. Now, starting at level 1, I think a sorcerer does better. I have not, for obvious reasons, been able to really field test the sorcerer but I think a sorcerer might do better at very low levels. A reach weapon (longspear) might help versus some of the swarm tactics. More spells would help and you're forced to pick something universally useful as a level 1 spell rather than gambling among several choices. Crap, y'know I might not be completely right about the f***ing warlock. :censored: :tantrum: :raincloud The thing that I worry the most about (which is why pumping the arcane classes still semms to be the way to go) is that I don't want to be the reverse of the "no sorcerer" DM and be a "no warlock" DM who makes the games less fun.
cthulhu42 06-08-06, 12:10 PM	You know, even in the best of games you're not going to get a heck of a lot out of wizards until later levels. In my experience, and I believe this is born out by several of the posts in this thread, choosing to play a wizard means resigning oneself to just trying to survive through the first 5 levels. Since it sounds like you guys rarely get to see those mid/high levels, its no wonder you're not seeing the wizards true potential. The fact that at least one of your DMs is a wiz hater just makes it that much worse. The problem with many DMs is that they are unprepared for what wizards can really do, which is royaly screw up your campagin plans, not to mention wreck their preconcieved notions of what "fantasy" ought to be. Consider the following... DM: The road lies before you. It will be a long and dangerous journey, fraught with peril... Wizard: I cast teleport! DM looks at his carfully planned stack of road encounters and begins to tear out his own hair and eat it. Teleport alone has caused more strife among my own group than I really care to relive, and for a long time we tinkered with it to no end in a vain attempt to retain the travel aspect that is a cornerstone of so much fantasy literature, until finally we realized that D&D is not LOTR. It just isn't. At a certain point, with a smart wizard in the party, horses become pretty obsoleate, as do tents once Mords Mansion becomes avalible. And don't even get me started about Fly and Invisibility! The thing is, untill your DM quits fighting the fact that wizards simply WILL fly, be invisible, and skip hundreds of miles of trecherous road, he will probably sing the blues about them being overpowered, and do his best to nerf them. Of course he likes warlocks! They rarely screw with the DMs best laid plans. I have found that the best way to really understand wizards as a DM is to play one into the higher levels under a DM who isn't afraid to let the wiz stretch his wings, so that you can have hands on knowledge of what they're really cabable of. It sounds like your wiz hater DM could really benefit from actually playing a wizard through 6th to 18th level so that he could see what a fun class they can be to play under a DM who knows how to deal with them, and so that he would better know how to deal with them when he DMs again. So, my suggestion, next time you DM, start everyone at 5th level and actually request that someone play a wiz. Then, let him go nuts! Let him find new spells. Let him artifice. Let him use all those great utility spells. Let him teleport and fly and be invisible. Let your players see what they can really do once they embrace flexible arcane magic.
Bringer of autumn 06-08-06, 12:34 PM	You know, even in the best of games you're not going to get a heck of a lot out of wizards until later levels. In my experience, and I believe this is born out by several of the posts in this thread, choosing to play a wizard means resigning oneself to just trying to survive through the first 5 levels. Since it sounds like you guys rarely get to see those mid/high levels, its no wonder you're not seeing the wizards true potential. The fact that at least one of your DMs is a wiz hater just makes it that much worse. The problem with many DMs is that they are unprepared for what wizards can really do, which is royaly screw up your campagin plans, not to mention wreck their preconcieved notions of what "fantasy" ought to be. Consider the following... DM: The road lies before you. It will be a long and dangerous journey, fraught with peril... Wizard: I cast teleport! DM looks at his carfully planned stack of road encounters and begins to tear out his own hair and eat it. Teleport alone has caused more strife among my own group than I really care to relive, and for a long time we tinkered with it to no end in a vain attempt to retain the travel aspect that is a cornerstone of so much fantasy literature, until finally we realized that D&D is not LOTR. It just isn't. At a certain point, with a smart wizard in the party, horses become pretty obsoleate, as do tents once Mords Mansion becomes avalible. And don't even get me started about Fly and Invisibility! The thing is, untill your DM quits fighting the fact that wizards simply WILL fly, be invisible, and skip hundreds of miles of trecherous road, he will probably sing the blues about them being overpowered, and do his best to nerf them. Of course he likes warlocks! They rarely screw with the DMs best laid plans. I have found that the best way to really understand wizards as a DM is to play one into the higher levels under a DM who isn't afraid to let the wiz stretch his wings, so that you can have hands on knowledge of what they're really cabable of. It sounds like your wiz hater DM could really benefit from actually playing a wizard through 6th to 18th level so that he could see what a fun class they can be to play under a DM who knows how to deal with them, and so that he would better know how to deal with them when he DMs again. So, my suggestion, next time you DM, start everyone at 5th level and actually request that someone play a wiz. Then, let him go nuts! Let him find new spells. Let him artifice. Let him use all those great utility spells. Let him teleport and fly and be invisible. Let your players see what they can really do once they embrace flexible arcane magic. That is why the DM has the power to ban spells like Teleport. :D
Bukowski 06-08-06, 01:51 PM	I think your gaming group needs to sit down and have a serious chat about how much more fun using party tactics will be to everyone involved.
NineInchNall 06-08-06, 05:26 PM	Crap, y'know I might not be completely right about the f***ing warlock. :censored: :tantrum: :raincloud The thing that I worry the most about (which is why pumping the arcane classes still semms to be the way to go) is that I don't want to be the reverse of the "no sorcerer" DM and be a "no warlock" DM who makes the games less fun. You won't be the reverse of the "no sorcerer" DM if all you do is allow the casters to get the rest around which the game is balanced and not nerf the arcane casters by introducing rules that specifically weaken casters. Then you'll be a fair DM. Seriously, not to sound condescending or anything, but it seems like your group would really, really, really benefit from playing through a few campaigns that adhere to the standard guidelines and do so without introducing any house rules.
Gilfalas_Elaandrin 06-08-06, 06:53 PM	OMG so funny it hurts. :eek: I play a warlock. I play him in a game with a ref who loves to give out feats like they are candy. Literally. At level 11 using her rules the warlock has 13 feats and will get a bonus 5 more at level 12 for staying single class (you should see her feat bonus' for multiclassing). She allows you to use feats to get invocations that are EQUAL or less than your highest grade. In short even with all those extra invocations and feats, the warlock is still very much a one trick pony. What he does he does well but he does even less than the sorcerer does and almost universally only for himself. They have pretty much NOTHING to use on others in the party. They can use their powers all day long but still you can only use one a round and your 'versatility' is NON existant. And heavens help you if you have a monster with an SR you cannot easily overcome or is immune to acid (amazing how many of those you can run into). And good luck getting cleric/mage usable items if your group HAS clerics and mages (though I do recognize this as more of a possible RP limitation and therefore may not apply to all play groups). I cannot count how many times the group has looked to me and said can you do _________ and I have to say, "Um no sorry. As the wizard/cleric." And in many, many of those occasions that __________ was pretty damn important to get done or used. The one real power a Warlock gets that no mage can match is Voracious Dispelling and his Beguiling Influence. Being able to dispell all day is very, very nice. Especially of the Warlock is acting as counterspell cover. But that only goes to a maximum of a +10 bonus. That seriously has it's limits. And being able to charm/bluff/intimidate the pants off pretty much ANYONE is great in an RP heavy game. There is 0 need to change wizards or Sorcerers. Maybe you just need to change your wizard or sorcerer PLAYERS? Warlocks are more like superhero's than fantasy characters. They fly, have iron hard skin and resists the elements, regenerate and shoot power bolts from their hands and can go invisible. CAPT FAERUN! Hell my Warlocks biggest complaint right now is that he does not have access to Prestidigitation... Though I bet I could convince my ref to allow it as a least invocation... :(In short the warlocks built in power limits more than make up for the better HD, Armor allowed and melee BAB. After all even with that semi nice BAB are you gonna waid in with a sword swinging or are you gonna hang back, flying out of melee reach and blast stuff with leaping bolts?
Neeek 06-08-06, 07:30 PM	The one real power a Warlock gets that no mage can match is Voracious Dispelling and his Beguiling Influence. Being able to dispell all day is very, very nice. Especially of the Warlock is acting as counterspell cover. But that only goes to a maximum of a +10 bonus. That seriously has it's limits. That's of questionable legality. According to the PHB(p.180) "Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell".
belthazzar1113 06-08-06, 07:34 PM	- Our group has the collective tactical ability of a cabbage. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: sorry, i fell of my chair on that one. I am used to my group that i spent years "teaching" how to be good players. everytime they did something stupid i would throw something at them that would show them just why that was a very bad idea. like when they wanted to tie themselves in a tree to sleep to avoid random enemies in the night they were attacked by steam mephits whos breath weapon attack (cloud of steam) also soaked the ropes wet and made them nearly impossible to untie. Or sending the rogue to "sneak ahead and scout" with a lantern..... need i explain what happened when the darkvision useing durugar saw an invisible lightsource coming towards them? Or when the warlock master of the unseen hand was able to grapple a gargantuan 35 HD advanced Iron Golem and was then "strangly" killed inthe next encounter as i realized how broken he had become.... I will let people try just about anything in my games but i always give them the warning... "if this becomes an issue or too brokenly powerful i reserve the right to squish the character without warning or preamble" And i have had to do it a few times, but my players know when its coming and usally its all for the best and we are pretty good sports about it. if your games are seriously that slanted for warlocks and so against wizards then let me be the first to admit.... OMFG wARl0Cks R sOOooO bR0k3N!!!11!!!1! WiZarDs r teh sUxX0r!1!! happy gaming :P
Jell_Moo 06-08-06, 08:16 PM	Originally posted by Votan. Yeah, it was a telepath with a 14 point buy equivalent stats. This was also the game where the DM banned "table talk" so I could not say things like "wait, you are opening up the telepath to a charge attack from the undead". I blew my last power point flanking the Blackguard (Jell-Moo had a custom class-- kind of a neat Bardic assassin -- in disguise and next to the enemy). After that I was a 12 dex archer with poor BAB. This might have been better except that usually archery feats help. He died being picked off by skeleton archers with no sign of power points ever returning. He was replaced with an Elf Druid who was probably my favorite D&D character to date despite never (once) wildshaping. I had forgotten about the restriction on "table talk"... Yeah, that was brutal as well. I'd also forgotten the absolutely horrid stats you had with the Psion... No wonder the guy underperformed! The Druid was really neat though. He was short lived, and probably not the best build ever, but he was just great when it came to being a robust and interesting character. Here I screwed up. This was also the game where a level 1 wizard lost his spellbook to bandits. No excuses, it was a bad call on my part. While this situation truly did suck at the time, you remedied it very quickly, minimizing the damage by a considerable degree. And truth be told, this bothered me a lot less than the absolute tactical breakdown we experienced. I paid a lot of attention to the warlock and, by the end, he was doing the majority of the killing. Now the monk was getting mobbed, the cleric was setting up a lot of burning hands attacks at level 3 and the bard never did successfully trip anybody. But the warlock tore into people like mad for 2d6+1 (point blank shot) + bardic song bonuses every bloody round. It was a very, very effective character and, after the wizard, looked very bad. The Warlock did the majority of the killing because I had built him to do just that. He was built essentially for the short term, where his Eldritch Blast was all he really needed. After the Wizard debacle, I was determined to have an effective character. Also, the battles you are reffering to were pretty much Kobold swarms, where the Eldritch Blast was effective because it meant that I was taking out 1 a round. The Warlock shined mostly out of comparison though. The Monk had real trouble hitting and didn't do great damage, the Cleric spent rounds lining up 1 spell, and the Bard... Well... The Bardic Music helped I suppose. However, had I been playing a melee class, I doubt that the outcome would have been very different. In the Kobold example, imagine what would have happened had the character been a Dwarven Fighter. With a reach weapon... and Combat Reflexes... and Cleave... The Warlock wasn't overpowered, he was just built to be useful at those levels, while the other characters simply were underoptimized. I actually hadn't realized that the rest of the party had evaded like that. Now that you mention it, I'll admit that this is all perfectly in character. Okay, this was a bit unavoidable. Whagt I do remember is that the person playing the Demon Elf (who played him perfectly in RP situations -- better than I could) had not put up any of my hour per level buffs so I had wondered if a better outcome was possible. But the tank dropping prone explains thigns a bit better. My memory of the encounter isn't perfect, but that was pretty much what happened. The Spellcaster was simply far and above the best available target, and one would have to had been an idiot to try and attack anything else. I think the reason that none of the full time buffs were up was because of the player's lack of familiarity with the character. All in all though, the buffs would likely have not made a difference. The tank (who had an astronomical AC) had an ongoing theme of going prone when archers appeared. An interesting and useful tactic... Except when you're the tank and you *want* the enemy to target you. The previous game to all of this (game zero) was really fun. The core group for msot of it was a ranger (eventually powerful werecreature), Druid (later a Psion) and a half dragon Paladin. In the last few sessions they acquired a cleric but it was hard to generalize cleric performance (new players so I dumped prepared casting and simply told her to select her spells as she casts them and not to go over the slot totals). That game, in all honesty, was the most fun I have ever had playing D&D. If we could recapture that feeling, I would be a very happy man. Originally posted by Broken vacuum. The latter part of your statement is the really important part to consider. Low level arcane casters need protection from the group so that they can contribute when they are really needed. Part of the main melee character's role in combat is to make sure that non-melee oriented characters do not have to enter melee. It is of course a team effort; other characters cannot just stand around, but the melee people are there to make it easier.[/i] Oh, you have my complete agreement. However, the issue we have is that party tactics are an issue. We have one player who pretty much always charges and attacks, one who is the most cautious thing you'll ever meet, and one who is wildly unpredictable. None of these three players are the type to defend an Arcane caster. This leads to the problems Votan and I described, since if one of us is DMing, protection is pretty much nil. Plus the other DM that runs the show if both of us are playing hates Arcanes... So regardless, Arcane casters are at a severe disadvantage either because of poor party tactics, or a DM vendetta. It seems like it. Also there seems to be not just a lack of team tactics, but a rather frequent suboptimal use of spells. Unfortunate choices for memorisation happens, that is part of the fun with wizards, but even allowing for the occasional hyperbole in Votan's stories, things seems to be far worse than that. Low level wizards are frail and the first order of business is to make sure that big bruisers do not get within melee range. Starting to cast a spell with a one round casting time when there is a clear avenue for charge is not a good idea. Low level wizards frequently do not have adequate spells memorised. Moving away in a suitable direction in order to create more favourable conditions for the spells that are available is always an option; mostly you can also get a shot off with your crossbow. Since this group seems to not work quite right in the team tactic department, consider learning Expeditious Retreat; cast and move 60ft is a good defensive option in a lot of circumstances. A few points: While I will certainly take my share of the blame with my failure at running a Wizard (first time I tried to play one in 3.x) I honestly never expected to see my party scoot off in all directions, leaving an absolutely perfect charging line between myself an a Raging Orc Barbarian! Sniping with a crossbow would have been a decent idea, if I had a crossbow. (The campaign world made acquiring such a device rather difficult). Expeditious Retreat would have been an utter waste of a spell slot. I had two first level spells per day. The most efficient spell I had was to cast Mage Armor on the Monk since it made her really hard to hit, and would last more than a single encounter. (Of course, I expected her to protect the feeble Wizards...) Now, with one slot remaining, Expeditious Retreat would have really accomplished nothing, other than being able to abandon my party. Essentially, with Sleep being the only option I had, I decided to cast it. Maybe it was the wrong choice, but I never expected to have my party disperse like that. The point is that a low level wizard essentially needs a bodyguard. Without somebody to make sure that the Wizard isn't suddenly stuck in melee, the Wizard is in a lot of trouble. Originally posted by Bukowski. I think your gaming group needs to sit down and have a serious chat about how much more fun using party tactics will be to everyone involved.[/i] This has been done before (in a gentle sort of way). Suffice it to say, there's an anology about Leopards and Spots or some such thing to be made.
NineInchNall 06-08-06, 08:45 PM	None of these three players are the type to defend an Arcane caster. This leads to the problems Votan and I described, since if one of us is DMing, protection is pretty much nil. Plus the other DM that runs the show if both of us are playing hates Arcanes... So regardless, Arcane casters are at a severe disadvantage either because of poor party tactics, or a DM vendetta. You really need to call the other players on their team unfriendly play. Hell, this thread really belongs in the "What's a Player/DM to do" boards. Actually, as long as you aren't in the "arcane casters all have to cut off a body part each time they cast a spell" game, just go ahead and be as selfish as they are. If they are going to run around and not help you out, don't bother helping them out. Run. Hide. Cast invisibility. Sleep in a rope trick pocket dimension. Charm person them all into doing whatever you want (an opposed Charisma check to get them to do anything). Be a total ass. :(
Votan 06-08-06, 09:00 PM	The Druid was really neat though. He was short lived, and probably not the best build ever, but he was just great when it came to being a robust and interesting character. Yep. He is the sort of character I like playing. Self-reliant, good plot hooks and able to hold his own in a tight corner. Plus, I really like spells and just wish that one did not have to be a cleric or druid to be effective at solving problems with spells. That game, in all honesty, was the most fun I have ever had playing D&D. If we could recapture that feeling, I would be a very happy man. I have been thinking about that. Part of the problem is that I need to develop another good idea. I think I have one but it's being slow to mature rather than fast. Oh, you have my complete agreement. However, the issue we have is that party tactics are an issue. We have one player who pretty much always charges and attacks, one who is the most cautious thing you'll ever meet, and one who is wildly unpredictable. None of these three players are the type to defend an Arcane caster. This leads to the problems Votan and I described, since if one of us is DMing, protection is pretty much nil. Plus the other DM that runs the show if both of us are playing hates Arcanes... So regardless, Arcane casters are at a severe disadvantage either because of poor party tactics, or a DM vendetta. I think that the unpredictable player might make a decent arcane caster under the correct circumstances. The one game we haven't discussed is the Unearthed Arcana Game. You were MIA for a lot of that one but the MVP (by a mile) was the unpredictable player as a Frost Witch. He was gimped by circumstance but still used clever tactics to dominate most encounters. The charger was playing a Mage Blade and managed to be a very effective blocker combined with Jell_moo's character (a very nasty Totem Warrior). The conservative guy did the scholastic thing and he does that very well. Actually, in that setting the casters did extremely well and party tactics took down some pretty tough opponents including people way out of your ECL. Remember the Iron Witch/warmain hybrids and the way you guys tore through 5 opponents all of a higher level than the party? Or the demons? I thought DR/good would be nasty in world with no holy weapons and they got completely smoked. Still, in D&D games we have had a basic issue with party tactics. Since one of the two tacticians is usually a DM, that makes it tough if the other is a wizard. :-P
Broken vacuum 06-09-06, 03:50 AM	Oh, you have my complete agreement. However, the issue we have is that party tactics are an issue. We have one player who pretty much always charges and attacks, one who is the most cautious thing you'll ever meet, and one who is wildly unpredictable. None of these three players are the type to defend an Arcane caster. This leads to the problems Votan and I described, since if one of us is DMing, protection is pretty much nil. Plus the other DM that runs the show if both of us are playing hates Arcanes... So regardless, Arcane casters are at a severe disadvantage either because of poor party tactics, or a DM vendetta. I understand as much, but what you have to understand is that your wizards needs to sit down and talk with his party. This can be done totally in-game. Reasonably the party has some sort of reason for travelling together; it is supposed to be a party, after all. At a minimum, the wizard must know what kind of response he can expect from his party members when under attack. It is not that you must dictate what everyone does all the time, but you must have an idea of the general direction of their actions. If you can manage to teach them some tactics at the same time, all the better. A few points: While I will certainly take my share of the blame with my failure at running a Wizard (first time I tried to play one in 3.x) I honestly never expected to see my party scoot off in all directions, leaving an absolutely perfect charging line between myself an a Raging Orc Barbarian! And your party members were idiots for doing it. The d4 arcanist is the last person you want to use for a meat shield. Try looking at this from a role playing perspective: if you loose a member of the team, your team will be one short. Counting on replacements is meta-game thinking. Not to mention they are leaving a friend to be mauled. Sniping with a crossbow would have been a decent idea, if I had a crossbow. (The campaign world made acquiring such a device rather difficult). Another bad idea. There is a reason wizards get crossbow proficiency; at lower levels wizards have so few spell slots that they need an alternate way of fighting. At the same levels the difference in attack bonus is not that great, so they can make adequate ranged attackers. If the crossbow is taken away, wizards need some sort of replacement ranged attack. In a worst case scenario you could use something you are non-proficient in, play an elf or spend a feat. You need to really consider NineInchNall's suggestion of playing the game unaltered a couple of times just to get a feel for it. Expeditious Retreat would have been an utter waste of a spell slot. I had two first level spells per day. The most efficient spell I had was to cast Mage Armor on the Monk since it made her really hard to hit, and would last more than a single encounter. (Of course, I expected her to protect the feeble Wizards...) Now, with one slot remaining, Expeditious Retreat would have really accomplished nothing, other than being able to abandon my party. Again, I refer you to NineInchNall's advice; if your party refuses to protect you, you must do so yourself. Ordinarily casting Mage Armour on a monk may be a good idea, but since no-one is ever going to bail you out, the first order of business is saving a slot for that. It is not that you should cast Expeditious Retreat every fight, but you should keep it memorised for dire situations. That must come first, since you are left to do the job that usually falls to others in the party: protect the frail party members (that means you). One slot for ER, one for something else. Since your party is not that into tactics, a Silent Image or Cause Fear might be a better choice than Sleep or Colour Spray. And do not forget the cantrips, as they can be exceedingly useful the first couple of levels. You mentioned daze yourself; a successful daze essentially means less damage to the party. And finally, you cast ER to gain superior movement which is not equivalent to abandoning your party unless you absolutely want to. It just makes you able to get out of the way. No-one is served by you going into melee with an orc barbarian. Get out of the way and wait for the right opportunity to do something significant (or just use a ranged weapon as mentioned before). That is how wizards should be played. The wizard is not some melee brute that must swing his sword every round. Frequently you have wait for or create the right opportunity before you cast a spell. Essentially, with Sleep being the only option I had, I decided to cast it. Maybe it was the wrong choice, but I never expected to have my party disperse like that. The point of being a wizard is that you should have. Have your wizard talk to his team members and observe their actions. The point is that a low level wizard essentially needs a bodyguard. Without somebody to make sure that the Wizard isn't suddenly stuck in melee, the Wizard is in a lot of trouble. You do not really need a dedicated bodyguard to make it as an arcanist, although it is nice. What you need is a party where not every party member except yourself is selfish and stupid. Again, if they refuse to protect you, you must protect yourself first. It basically sounds like you are doing your best for them and they do not do anything for you and that is not the way to go. Go full defence and memorise ER and Cause Fear and only use them if absolutely necessary (for you). You can still be nice and throw in a useful cantrip or two. Plink away with your ranged weapon of choice (non-proficient if necessary) if scrolls are not available. As an arcane caster you cannot afford to let your party walk all over you. Sooner than you think you will be able to cast Web, Glitterdust or Invisibility. And not long after that come the third level spells that provide your party with some rather necessary effects like, say, flight. Wait for that (and an increased number of spell slots). If your party members start to grumble, just tell them how it is: if you are to help them, they are to help you. It is called working together and that is something your party is not doing right now.
NineInchNall 06-09-06, 03:56 AM	Amen, Brother Vacuum!
tunagolem 06-09-06, 05:18 AM	Amen, Brother Vacuum! אמן.
Neeek 06-09-06, 05:23 AM	I think my response to the ranger using me as a meat shield thing would be to come back as cleric and refuse to heal anyone else.
Votan 06-09-06, 10:58 AM	I think my response to the ranger using me as a meat shield thing would be to come back as cleric and refuse to heal anyone else. I don't do the "selfish player" thing well but you did hit upon the final solution. I read over the DMs campaign book and noticed something -- everybody BUT dwarves have heavy armor banned (and almsot all armor was banned for humans). Dwarves can be clerics (or psychic warriors). Dwarf clerics can select any domain and freaky feats like divine metamagic (unlike a human cleric). Dwarves have racial bonuses above and beyond those in the regular D&D game. Last time I looked, the dwarf did not suck before it got armor advantages over all opponents. The DM balanced this by the dwarf being slow (default 20 foot move). Carefully looking, I noticed that Longstrider was a spell on the Travel domain. So long as I took a neutral alignment for the dwarf and accepted unlimited freedom of action I could have that domain. Way off topic but the final version of that party was Dwarf cleric with DMM (quicken) plus lots of turning attempts -- me-- and a Dwarf cleric who was sickeningly optimized as a melee tank (with more hit poitns that I thought it was possible to have on a 4th level character) which was Jell_Moo. But neither of us wanted to be playing a cleric.
Votan 06-09-06, 11:20 AM	Plink away with your ranged weapon of choice (non-proficient if necessary) if scrolls are not available. As an arcane caster you cannot afford to let your party walk all over you. Sooner than you think you will be able to cast Web, Glitterdust or Invisibility. I had houseruled that scrolls had no XP cost to make and the wizard had a large supply of scroll materials for crafting (50 scrolls worth, I think). I thought that this would help but the party basically would have abandoned the wizard if he stopped to craft a scroll. He went through about 5 adventures with a huge supply of scroll materials that never turned into spells. :( Now the pace of the adventure was fast as well. And crossbows were found before too long. They just were not part of the starting gear although the party had a feud with the storekeep (who decided that, with no other stores nearby, adventurers could pay a premium).
Broken vacuum 06-09-06, 01:52 PM	I had houseruled that scrolls had no XP cost to make and the wizard had a large supply of scroll materials for crafting (50 scrolls worth, I think). I thought that this would help but the party basically would have abandoned the wizard if he stopped to craft a scroll. He went through about 5 adventures with a huge supply of scroll materials that never turned into spells. :( Scribing scrolls is cheap as it is. XP is not the problem, the lack of downtime is, though. And that falls squarely on the DM. It takes a day to craft a scroll, so you are telling me that through five adventures there was not one day of rest. During or between those five adventures the party never spent a day in a tavern and as soon as one adventure was over another magically appeared that had to be tackled right then and there. That is the DMs doing not the party's. The party obviously did not help the matter any, though. You should make time for scribing scrolls whenever possible as it boosts the power of the party significantly. Again, if the rest of the party refuses to help you and forces you to adapt to their pace, they should not expect you to do anything for them. No Mage Armour for the monk, no Magic Weapon for the fighter when facing incorporeals and so on. Defence for yourself is what counts overall in this situation. Then you start charging them (blackmail is such an ugly word) when they really need your services. As I said before, the problem is that the party is not working together. It is just a ragtag band of low level adventurers travelling in the same direction. Once you go up against any sort of intelligent opposition of adequate CR you are toast.