Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nimrodzut 01-18-05, 12:06 AM	Question: How many spellpoints do you think a Warlock should get if you were using the Unearthed Arcana Spellpoint varient? I've been using spellpoints in the campaign I've been running and I've found it to be a nice alternative to the core rules spells per day way of spellcasting. Recently though, a player chose a Warlock as a character class, and I've been trying to figure out exactly how I want to work out how his spellpoints per day (I'm don't think a Warlock should have an unlimitednumber of Invocations per day). I don't want to start an argument about the power level of the Warlock, so please don't reply with comments aimed toward that end :D :rolleyes: ;) . I'm looking for opinions on how many spellpoints you think they should get. I personally don't think that they should get the same number as a Sorcerer or a Cleric/Druid/Wizard, but I don't think they should get the other spellpoint progressions either. What's your thoughts? P.S.: In addition, how many spellpoints do you think other spellcasting classes (like the Assassin, Blackguard, etc.) should get? Any suggestions?
Kintara 01-18-05, 02:06 AM	Warlocks get at-will spell-like abilities. Why would they need spellpoints at all? Just port them over with no changes. Edit: I don't know how to answer your question any other way, really. The RAW gives them no limits on uses per day. If you think that's overpowered, then you really need to come up with your own guidelines, as the unlimited nature of their abilities are rather integral to the foundation of the class. I'm trying to be helpful, but I don't know how overpowered you think they are, so I can't help you. It would be a shot in the dark. One thing that I will tell you is that I don't know how you would price the invocations, even if we could come up with a proper number of SPs. It seems like they'd need to be priced individually. How would you handle the invocations that last 24 hours? Should they cost the same to cast as one that is activated many times? If you're going to give them spellpoints, my opinion is that you might as well simply take the Battle Sorcerer variant class, and modify it to match the flavor of the Warlock. It would be easier, I think, to convert that over to the spellpoint system.
gbnogkfs 01-18-05, 11:41 AM	It's really difficult to answer your question. Since the Warlock has no limit on their use of spell-like abilities, it should stay that way in a Spell Point conversion... ... but then you say you don't want that. So, basically, what are you really asking? for minor spellcasting classes: basically, you can use the trick to try and compare the spellcasting power of the specific class with the most similar base class... for exemple: Blackguard (and A LOT of other PrC classes): their 10th level is pretty much like ranger/paladin 17th (2 2 2 1): so give them the same amount of SP as 17th level paladin - the 5th level is like paladin's 11th, and so on... Assassin: a bit more: at 10th level they cast the same as paladin 20th...
spamfiltre 01-18-05, 06:24 PM	Remember that invocations have spell level equivalents. THat might help you figure out the number. Decide how many Eldritch blasts (at level 1), least, lesser, greater, and dark invocations you want them to be able to "cast" and go from there.
Kintara 01-18-05, 11:29 PM	Remember that invocations have spell level equivalents. THat might help you figure out the number. Decide how many Eldritch blasts (at level 1), least, lesser, greater, and dark invocations you want them to be able to "cast" and go from there. The trouble with that is that when the author designed the class, he didn't take in the number of activations per day into consideration when balancing the ability. In other words, you might expect one invocation to be used once per day (like the ones with 24 hour durations), and another to be used five times, and another thirty times. Do you see my point? I don't think it works to simply go by effective spell level at all, really.
strenoth 01-19-05, 01:44 AM	they shoudl have AT LEAST as many spellpoints as a sorcerer, since they are designed to cast 'spells' more often per day anyway, but really, don't alter it...
Drachasor 01-19-05, 01:48 PM	Kintara (and others later) hit the nail on the head. You are going to have to tell use what your problem is with Warlocks before we can help. Frankly reducing how much they can cast so it isn't essentially as much as they want is forcing the class to be weaker (whilst giving spell points to Wizards and the like will make them stronger, generally). Unless you are going to boost the power of all the Warlock abilities, I can't see any reason to not just keep them as they are or give them 100+ spell points every level (and having every invocation use cost 1 spell point). What you want is like asking for spell point values on a warrior swinging his sword or using a feat, and how many sps that fighter should have at every level. IMHO. -Drachasor
Lia Nightdemon 01-19-05, 02:31 PM	why are you bothering with spell points for the warlock. They get all their spell like abilities at will. meaning they can cast it when ever they want never having to prepare or study them. They have no spell points cause they don't use them.
Nimrodzut 01-19-05, 02:35 PM	...This is precisely what I was trying to avoid. I'm not trying to enter a discussion about how powerful a Warlock is. I'm trying to get some feedback on how to mediate their power usage. :confused: I really don't understand why a Warlock should be able to exercise their magical ability any time they want to, where every other spellcaster in the entire game doesn't have that same luxury (honestly, I think it's a poor class to begin with, the munchkin author of which must have been trying to create a "best-of-all-worlds" class). :thumbsdow Anyway, even I'm digressing now. I think I have an idea now of how to generate their spell points per level. I have to admit, asking anyone on the boards about this is an effort in futility, since none of you know how I've modified the magic system already. I've been trying to balance the Warlock with my already established revisions (which are based on the variant rules in the Unearthed Arcana). I want to give everything (spells per day for classes, spell-like abilities, and even magic item usage) a spell point value, to make the system uniform (it's really not that complicated, and it's been working so far... the only hitch of which has been the new inclusion of a Warlock in the party). Oh, and I don't think it's fair to compare a Warlock to any non-spellcasting class, because it won't add up. A first level human fighter will romp any other first level human spellcaster, hands-down). Yes, Yes, I know that it's not exactly that cut-and-dry, but it's close. The spellcaster would have to stay out of range of the fighter at all times for their magic to be effective... Anyway, I'm just looking for opinions on how to effectively assign Warlocks spellpoints, I'm not interested in debating how powerful they are. If I wanted to argue about the power level of a class, I'd argue that Sorcerers have gotten the royal-screw job by the game designers. They've really got to figure out what they want to do with that particular class. In the game I'm running, I've augmented exactly how they cast spells, and adding the spellcasting variants based on what's printed in Unearthed Arcana helps (with the Spellpoint variant they get a few extra spell points, and I like the Metamagic Component rules... with a little tweaking/expanding).
Drachasor 01-19-05, 03:03 PM	I understand what you want, but when you are modifying how a class works you generally have to be concerned about balance issues. That or you are trying to get it to work in basically the same way as it did before. You're telling us to ignore balance issues and that you want the class more limited than before...and that's nerfing the class. This is inherently the case since this new Warlock will be able to do less than the normal one. Most of us (perhaps everyone that has responded) views the Warlock Class as balanced; a bit stronger than a normal caster at low levels, and weaker at higher levels. As you noted, a low level fighter is more powerful than even a Warlock at low levels so the low level thing is not much of an issue. Hence we are trying to fathom how much you want the class nerfed, and some have commented on the problem of abilities with 24 hour durations vs. abilities without such durations. Now, you simply need to decide how many encounters you are going to have in the average day (or perhaps in a long day), and figure out how many rounds of battle that would be. 8 rounds for every combat might be about right. Figure out how much each ability the Warlock has should cost, then figure out how much less you want the Warlock to do compared to what he can do now (with some acknowledgement of out of combat magic). Personally I think you are making a knee-jerk reaction to a class that operates more like a fighter or the like than a standard arcane caster, and I fear you are going to make your warlock underpowered. It *is* a valid concenr for us to have, and asking us not to tell you we have those concerns is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. Perhaps you should consider how effect in combat, over several combats, compared to a Wizard and Sorcerer at various levels (say 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20, or a subset of those). Then decide wether you want to depower the class. If you have some other reason for the change, such as allowing spells that drain spell points or something similar, then tell us that. In this case I'd do one of three things: 1. Give them the same number of spell points as a Sorcerer, but keep the amounts of points needed for their invocations very low. 2. Make them immune to such items. 3. Make such items (after a failed save) reduce how much they can use their powers for a certain time (maybe so that they can only use them once every other round for 10 rounds or can't use any powers for 5 rounds...something like that). This can be tricky though, one needs to be careful not to make such items too powerful against warlocks. Hmm, or you can combine 1 and 3 into 4: 4. They have the spell points of a sorcerer of their level (or maybe half), and their invocations cost nothing to use. If they are robbed of all their spell points though, then they cannot use any of their invocations (including eldritch blast). Any invoked effects on them remain in effect until dispelled, however. That's about the best I can do at the moment. You'll have to deal with my concern for the person playing the Warlock, for I caution you to be careful not to make him underpowered compared to everyone else. I suppose you could give the Warlock Spell points and then give him easier ways to boost the power of his eldritch blast and perhaps some of his other abilities (perhaps let him take a heighten spell-like ability feat that costs a certain amount of points for each level heigtened, instead of a limited number of uses per day). With some work you might be able to balance the Warlock that way. Or you could give them twice as many invocations. In any case, extensive modifications are always tricky. -Drachasor
Kintara 01-19-05, 03:04 PM	We don't know what your assessment of the Warlock precisely is, so the issue of power is exactly what is relevant. Explain how overpowered it is, somehow, and we can help you better.
Nimrodzut 01-19-05, 04:14 PM	I'm not trying to "nerf the class" as you put it. I'm trying to cleanly mesh this class in with my already preexisting spellcasting variants/house rules (which I've based off the rules in the Unearthed Arcana, with some modifications). I hate the idea of characters with essentially "free magic" plain and simple... and outside of being some uber-powerful godlike being, I don't think any character should get it... though admittedly, that's just my opnion. I don't think giving Warlocks spell points is going to ruin the class either. When measured against any other spellcasting class, they'll hold definitely their own. In my eyes, this class represents the power-creep phenomenon that caused the original 3.5 revision. A class that is limited in terms of variety, but still very solid since it gets all the basics plus is simply not balanced, just focused. The Warlock gets a limitless ranged offensive attack, it gets better attack bonuses compared to the other spellcasters, better hit points, and then to top it all off, it gets unlimited invocations per day, where's the sense in that? Fine, they'll never be able to cast a spell that'll do 20D6+ points of damage or alter the very fabric reality with spells like Wish/Miracle (though, most other spellcasters won't ever be able to do that either, unless you're into munchkin campaigns) but they'll still have a decided spellcasting endurance advantage over any other spellcaster. They'll just keep going, and going, and going... never stopping. It just doesn't seem like a well designed class in my opinion, though it's not terrible. With some tweaking, it should work just fine. Bottom line, I don't think any class should negate the necessity of validity of another class. Like there shouldn't be another base-class with the Rogue's sneak-attack and skills, or a Fighter's number of bonus combat feats, etc. What I see the Warlock doing is invalidating the Sorcerer to some extent, and I don't like that. With the way things are already, the Sorcerer seems like it gets screwed, especially now that Warlocks are on the scene. Sorcerer seems like totally pointless class to take when measured against the Wizard or Warlock. No, I think the Warlock needs to be brought back to the drawing board, and the game designers need to get back in touch with the original vision of the game, they're letting things get out of hand again, and before we know it, there'll be a D&D 4.0 with an "oops we did it again" excerpt on the front papers...
Drachasor 01-19-05, 08:59 PM	Almost all the time, the Warlock's endurance isn't really going to come up. It will a bit at early levels, but 5+ this will greatly lessen and eventually disappear. His damage spell is ok, but it isn't really that good. A Wizard or Sorcerer can outdo him early on with Scorching Ray, and at 5+ the Wizards and Sorcerers start to get tons of powerful area effect spells that not only hit those areas, but do more damage to single targets. The Warlock simply doesn't have the raw spellpower of the Wizard *OR* Sorcerer, and to pretend like he does to justify limiting how often he can use his abilities *will* nerf the class. Remember, the Warlock will never get a Fireball or anything like it, and that is a third level spell. His AoE spells are extremely limited compared to this, and a Fireball is the mere beginning of AoE for a Wizard or Sorcerer. The Warlock will never have any spell that does 1d6/level, they are about at 1d6/(2 levels), and at high levels even this drops down a bit. The Warlock gets relatively minor magic as much as he wants, and the minor part is a very important thing ot remember. Any Wizard or Sorcerer about at the Warlocks level will be able to outdo the damage a Warlock can do quite easily (except perhaps for the first 3 or so levels, but the Warlock isn't even outdoing a good archer or Fighter here). The endurance factor doesn't even get them that far, since they will have to rest when the party rests. There will be some situations when they get to make use of the endurace, but largely it will be invisible. Heck, you could simply nerf the class just by having only 1 combat every day. In this instance the Warlock will be constantly outshined by the Wizard and Sorcerer. Even at 2 a day it would be hard for a Warlock to pull ahead at later levels. Anyhow, if you don't like the idea of a Arcane Caster with less raw power but who emphasizes endurance, then you have a few things to do. First, recognize the class is in no way overpowered because of this, you simply have a strong aesthetic dislike to it. Secondly, tell your player this and that the class is going to be modified. Thirdly, give the Warlock more raw power and limitations, because if you just give him limitations you are nerfing the class wether you admit it or not. If you don't want to give the Warlock more power, then tell your player to pick something else and don't allow anyone to be a Warlock. As far as this goes, I think I have helped out as much as possible. You will have to find a way to make the Warlock functionally different from the Sorcerer when you up the Warlock's raw spell power. He'll probably end up pretty similar. -Drachasor
Avihs 01-19-05, 09:14 PM	Bottom line, I don't think any class should negate the necessity of validity of another class. Like there shouldn't be another base-class with the Rogue's sneak-attack and skills, or a Fighter's number of bonus combat feats, etc. What I see the Warlock doing is invalidating the Sorcerer to some extent, and I don't like that. With the way things are already, the Sorcerer seems like it gets screwed, especially now that Warlocks are on the scene. Sorcerer seems like totally pointless class to take when measured against the Wizard or Warlock. No, I think the Warlock needs to be brought back to the drawing board, and the game designers need to get back in touch with the original vision of the game, they're letting things get out of hand again, and before we know it, there'll be a D&D 4.0 with an "oops we did it again" excerpt on the front papers... Sorry... But... Why not explain to your player that you will not allow a warlock in your campaign? One of the precepts of the warlock is that he is a break from the traditional vancian and spotaneous (vancian lite) systems. What it seems you want to do is to push him into your version of a cookie cutter type magic system, which in my opinion won't work out quite as well as you would like. Don't get me wrong, a unified theory towards magic can be a good thing, especially where psionics, arcane and divine magic can all be brought together on the same playing field. But that just isn't the warlock. What you may want to do is, ask your player why he wants to play a warlock. A couple of aspects to playing one is: A) It is a break from the standard magic weilding classes. B) No Spell points or spells memorized/cast calculated on a round for round or day by day basis. These alone can make a warlock appealing to play.
Nimrodzut 01-19-05, 09:50 PM	Again I'm afraid you may have missed my point... but that's okay. My problem with the Warlock is aesthetic, I'll concede that. But then again, it kinda ties in with my problem with the whole magic/spellcasting system in D&D. That's one of the reasons that I've been adapting the spell point system to my current campaign. I like that system better. It's just a matter of personal tastes, I suppose. The player and I have already spoken about the "free invocation" issue, and he knows the campaign is using a spellpoint spellcasting variant. What I've been hoping to accomplish is to find opinions about what kind of spellpoint progression to put them on. In the end I think I've figured out something... it'll be play tested, and if it sucks, it'll be modified... no biggy. If you look carefully, you'll see I'm not actually changing the class that much by giving them spell points. It all depends on the way you look at it. It all really does depend on how much "combat" is in the campaign. If that's the kind of game you're playing, then yeah, I guess you could say I'm "limiting" the class. Though way I figure it, they don't need that many spellpoints to do what they do, eldritch blast is only 1st level invocation (1 spell point) and many of their other powers are also relatively cheap in comparison to what the other arcane spellcasters have to deal to cast spells, especially the good ones. But then you could also argue that I'm "nerfing" the whole magic system really. So, in the end, I feel I'd like to do something with the class, just to fit it in with what's already established.
EvilPenguinKing 01-19-05, 11:09 PM	everyone's failed to point out one thing. A warlock gets SPELL-LIKE ABILITIES, not SPELLS, it's a common misconception that that they are the same thing, they're not. A spell-like ability is an innate ability of something that has the same end result as a spell, and don't even need to be 'cast' in the tradiational way. Example: Say you have detect magic as a (sp), you wouldn't do gestures with your hands and mumble some incantations, but simple stand and focus your mind, your pupils would, for example, become catlike or glow faintly to show something happened. To justify giving the warlock spell points, you would have to do the same for every single monster in the monster manual who get spell-like abilities as well, especially the ones who get abilities at will, which I might add, is quite a few. Giving something with a spell-like ability at will requirement of spellpoints to use it, would also require you to also give any class with a spell-like ability the same, such as a paladin with their Detect Evil spell-like ability at will, or calling his special mount even. Half the Bard's bardic music are spell-like abilities as well. I severly question your rationality of the spell-like abilities requiring spell-points.
Kintara 01-19-05, 11:13 PM	You believe the Warlock is an example of power creep, so clearly you think it's overpowered. I still think it's relevant, if you want advice on putting a spellpoint limit on the class. I can understand your desire to fit the class into a model that you want all spellcasters to fit into. Anyway, I did point out some advice about converting the invocations. Since the class puts no limits on uses per day, the invocations don't use that as a balancing mechanism. How are you going to handle metamagic? Do the invocations that modify eldritch blasts increase the spellpoint cost? If so, keep in mind that it's pretty much assumed that a warlock will attach at least one (and probably two) of these sorts of invocations to their eldritch blasts, especially at higher levels. This was taken into consideration when the designers made the class, and I'm sure it affects how fast the eldritch blast damage increases in the progression. If they are going to need to use less of these invocations to preserve spellpoints, consider increasing the number of damage dice they receive.
Drachasor 01-19-05, 11:21 PM	I just want you to keep in mind that if the Warlock ever runs out of spell points, then you have nerfed the class. As Kintara rightly pointed out, you also have the EB modifications to worry about with this. I think you are just going to have to rewrite the class and make all the abilities more powerful if you are going to limit how much they can do things. That's the only fair way to handle it. Again though, I don't see why you just tell your player he can't be a Warlock and have him use the War Mage or Sorcerer instead. Seriously, you are removing the main thing that makes the Warlock unique, so I don't see what you are even bothering with a heavy edit that will end up making it very similar to existing classes. -Drachasor
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-19-05, 11:51 PM	In the end I think I've figured out something... it'll be play tested, and if it sucks, it'll be modified... no biggy. Cool. What'd you decide to do? I just got Unearthed Arcana, and I'm curious. -mike the amazing muskrat
IceFractal 01-20-05, 02:18 AM	The problem with giving the Warlock spellpoints is that the Warlock is not a spellcaster rules-wise. They may be spellcasters flavor-wise but rule-wise they're a lot more like the Soul Blade, or taking levels in a monster class that gives you spell-like abilities. Giving them spellpoints because other spellcasters have spellpoints would only be valid if previously they had had spell slots like other spellcasters, which they don't, because, again, they aren't spellcasters in the rules sense. Now I'm not saying you couldn't make the Warlock's abilities cost spellpoints, but if you did you'd have to both figure out reasonable values, which could be tricky, and, importantly, boost their power to compensate. If their abilities were limited as much as a Wizard's/Sorcerer's, they would suck, because they get only 12 invocations known. Compare that to ~50-60 spells known for a Sorcerer, or potentially hundreds known for a Wizard, and then tell me they should be limited to the same amount.
gbnogkfs 01-20-05, 03:05 AM	meybe we should give it spell-like points... :D
DM Zoc 01-20-05, 06:04 PM	Example: Say you have detect magic as a (sp), you wouldn't do gestures with your hands and mumble some incantations, but simple stand and focus your mind, your pupils would, for example, become catlike or glow faintly to show something happened. I disagree entirely. Spell-like abilities provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and (in the case of the Warlock) incur Arcane Spell Failure. You don't draw an AoO by just standing around looking like a ninny; you have to do something large and un-defensive, like waving your arms around or trying to reach past someone's sword to hit for damage. That Invocations are subject to ASF might mean that they are different from normal spell-like abilities, but they are all subject to AoO, so they all involve waving something around to get hit.
Xandore 01-20-05, 06:06 PM	I like the warlock myself both as a DM and a player. I like it so much that I added the invocation ability to my witch class. I did however decide it needed a limiting factor since the class is much like a sorcerer. The witch now having both spell casting and invocations needed some more limitations. I reduced the number of spell points she has for casting of her normal spells, I require the invocations to take up spell slots for spells known, and I came up with mental fatigue. Mental fatigue was my big limiting factor. I use vitality point system. For mental vitality points each character gains (1d4 + charisma modifier) each level reguardless of class. When mental vitality is reduced to zero the character is mentally fatigued taking -2 penalty to INT, WIS, and CHA. This lasts just like normal fatigue with 8 hours of rest or by magic that specificaly can remove fatgue. Taking more damage does not reduce mental vitality below zero or cause wounds. Regaining mental vitality will not eliminate the fatigue. While mentally fatigued you can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities that take less than a standard action to cast or longer than a standard action to cast. Casting a spell or a spell-like ability with a standard action while mentally fatigued requires a Concentration check with a D20 + spell level to cast or it fails along with losing any spell points. Each time an invocation is cast you take 1 mental vitality point of damage for least, 2 for lesser, 3 for greater, and 4 for dark. You can regain mental vitality at the rate of 1 point per level per hour of rest. You also regain all mental vitality with 8 hours of rest. This method allows a limit, but also lets the caster spend an hour or more to be able to continue casting spells that day.
Avihs 01-20-05, 08:04 PM	I disagree entirely. Spell-like abilities provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and (in the case of the Warlock) incur Arcane Spell Failure. You don't draw an AoO by just standing around looking like a ninny; you have to do something large and un-defensive, like waving your arms around or trying to reach past someone's sword to hit for damage. That Invocations are subject to ASF might mean that they are different from normal spell-like abilities, but they are all subject to AoO, so they all involve waving something around to get hit. Actually... Yeah you could suffer a AoO from stareing at something... In the case of the Dectect Magic (Sp) ability of the warlock. Under normal Invocation use, yes you do have a somatic component, however, their Dectect Magic ability is not an invocation, it is just a standard spell-like ability, no where in the description for the warlock does it indicate that it is. So the assumption now is how a spell-like ability like Detect Magic could initiate an AoO. For that you can find the answer to that in the first paragraph of the spells description (as well as other divinations such as Detect Evil/Good, Detect Secret Doors or Detect Snares and Pits). You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject. The key word here is: STUDY. That word alone suggests a focus of concentration to the exclusion to other outside stimuli, thus incuring an AoO because your attention is elsewhere when attuning your visual/mental senses to the task of sensing the world in a different fashion. In this case: Magic. Sorry Nimrodzut, for the derailment, but I just had to respond to that one. Back on topic though, Xandore has some good points for ya there.