'Fixing' V-type classes - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

'Fixing' V-type classes

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
eruko
Mar 14, 2010 17:35:52 The warlock in my group has been complaining recently about how the V-style of her class is gimping her class. To give her a bit more choice in power selection, I've decided to add a feat to solve this problem:

Versatile Warlock
Prequisite: Warlock, Charisma 15, Constitution 15
Choose either Charisma or Constitution. When you use a warlock attack power you can use this stat for the power's attack roll rather than the ability score normally used for the attack. You still determine damage normally.

In this way you can get more versatility in power selection, while giving up a bit of damage on the attacks you wouldn't otherwise be getting. You're not able to totally dump the other attack stat, due to the prequisites. Otherwise warlocks would have an advantage over other classes, because they only have 1 secondary stat.

Is this houserule broken or abusable?

Btw: I know that rangers, clerics and paladins are suffering from the same class-structure, but these classes appear to manage quite good the way they are. Maybe paladins could use it, but clerics and rangers really don't need any more buffs.
#2
wangatoo
Mar 14, 2010 17:39:15
nice job on that, it makes warlocks into an actually viable class
#3
Myztek
Mar 14, 2010 17:48:07 All of those classes are viable, already, but I see no problem with thise houserule feat.

I played a Strength based Paladin for along time and enjoyed him a lot. He was certainly effective enough to contribute (in a non-twinkie party), and hwe was a lot of fun to roleplay. In the end, if he can do his job and is fun to play, the character is fine. Warlocks may not have the 1337 DPR of some of the other classes, but they are a blast to roleplay and have a lot of fun abailities to go with their lesser damage. I think this feat is fine as an additional option, but as a fix it is not necessary.
#4
Einlanzer
Mar 16, 2010 23:27:36
All of those classes are viable, already, but I see no problem with thise houserule feat.

I played a Strength based Paladin for along time and enjoyed him a lot. He was certainly effective enough to contribute (in a non-twinkie party), and hwe was a lot of fun to roleplay. In the end, if he can do his job and is fun to play, the character is fine. Warlocks may not have the 1337 DPR of some of the other classes, but they are a blast to roleplay and have a lot of fun abailities to go with their lesser damage. I think this feat is fine as an additional option, but as a fix it is not necessary.

I agree with the above poster. The V-shaped classes are not inherently broken the way some people insist on arguing, but having said that your feat seems perfectly appropriate.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 eruko Mar 14, 2010 17:35:52	The warlock in my group has been complaining recently about how the V-style of her class is gimping her class. To give her a bit more choice in power selection, I've decided to add a feat to solve this problem: Versatile Warlock Prequisite: Warlock, Charisma 15, Constitution 15 Choose either Charisma or Constitution. When you use a warlock attack power you can use this stat for the power's attack roll rather than the ability score normally used for the attack. You still determine damage normally. In this way you can get more versatility in power selection, while giving up a bit of damage on the attacks you wouldn't otherwise be getting. You're not able to totally dump the other attack stat, due to the prequisites. Otherwise warlocks would have an advantage over other classes, because they only have 1 secondary stat. Is this houserule broken or abusable? Btw: I know that rangers, clerics and paladins are suffering from the same class-structure, but these classes appear to manage quite good the way they are. Maybe paladins could use it, but clerics and rangers really don't need any more buffs.
#2 wangatoo Mar 14, 2010 17:39:15	nice job on that, it makes warlocks into an actually viable class
#3 Myztek Mar 14, 2010 17:48:07	All of those classes are viable, already, but I see no problem with thise houserule feat. I played a Strength based Paladin for along time and enjoyed him a lot. He was certainly effective enough to contribute (in a non-twinkie party), and hwe was a lot of fun to roleplay. In the end, if he can do his job and is fun to play, the character is fine. Warlocks may not have the 1337 DPR of some of the other classes, but they are a blast to roleplay and have a lot of fun abailities to go with their lesser damage. I think this feat is fine as an additional option, but as a fix it is not necessary.
#4 Einlanzer Mar 16, 2010 23:27:36	All of those classes are viable, already, but I see no problem with thise houserule feat. I played a Strength based Paladin for along time and enjoyed him a lot. He was certainly effective enough to contribute (in a non-twinkie party), and hwe was a lot of fun to roleplay. In the end, if he can do his job and is fun to play, the character is fine. Warlocks may not have the 1337 DPR of some of the other classes, but they are a blast to roleplay and have a lot of fun abailities to go with their lesser damage. I think this feat is fine as an additional option, but as a fix it is not necessary. I agree with the above poster. The V-shaped classes are not inherently broken the way some people insist on arguing, but having said that your feat seems perfectly appropriate.