The Warlock - a massive rewrite [3.5 Base Class WIP]

Dear Mammon, I just wanted to thank you for this rebuild. One of the things that seems to have come up is the use of Hellfire Warlock and the concerns over it really cranking this rewrite (which I love with every fiber of my being) into the stratosphere.

Just a note that Hellfire Warlock expressly forbids the advancement of levels and class abilities in the warlock class that are not "invocations known" and "Eldritch Blast" damage.

As sweet as this rewrite you have to realize that you're going o be giving up three levels and your heritage capstone to get an additional +6d6 per blast. This includes the final "Eldritch Volley" shot you get.

So, provided you're not running something totally stupid like HB + Eldritch Glaive, you are losing some serious firepower.

Warlock 16/Binder1/HW3: Lvl 20 = 16d6 per shot if you're willing to soak the CON, let's assume that we get two (from the Volley ability) of those shots for 32d6 in a round with 2 CON damage.

Warlock 20: 10d6 per shot, No CON soak, and three shots for 30d6 in a round. Now ... Assuming you can beat the SR of a CR20 critter .... That's still only 105 damage. (My level 12 Swordsage can beat that on a lucky Greater Insightful Strike roll)

I really love this idea and build because I always hated how ... underpowered the WotC Warlock seemed, despite how awesome the concept was.

Hope To see you complete this:

Also what's the reason for italicized Heritage abilities vs the bolded ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnonymousOne

Dear Mammon, I just wanted to thank you for this rebuild. One of the things that seems to have come up is the use of Hellfire Warlock and the concerns over it really cranking this rewrite (which I love with every fiber of my being) into the stratosphere.

Just a note that Hellfire Warlock expressly forbids the advancement of levels and class abilities in the warlock class that are not "invocations known" and "Eldritch Blast" damage.

As sweet as this rewrite you have to realize that you're going o be giving up three levels and your heritage capstone to get an additional +6d6 per blast. This includes the final "Eldritch Volley" shot you get.

So, provided you're not running something totally stupid like HB + Eldritch Glaive, you are losing some serious firepower.

Warlock 16/Binder1/HW3: Lvl 20 = 16d6 per shot if you're willing to soak the CON, let's assume that we get two (from the Volley ability) of those shots for 32d6 in a round with 2 CON damage.

Warlock 20: 10d6 per shot, No CON soak, and three shots for 30d6 in a round. Now ... Assuming you can beat the SR of a CR20 critter .... That's still only 105 damage. (My level 12 Swordsage can beat that on a lucky Greater Insightful Strike roll)

I really love this idea and build because I always hated how ... underpowered the WotC Warlock seemed, despite how awesome the concept was.

Hope To see you complete this:

Also what's the reason for italicized Heritage abilities vs the bolded ones?

---

I believe this Warlock remake may provide an answer your needs.

I don't like some of the no saving throw stuff. The Aberration heritage blast is iffy, it should be useable at will like every single other Warlock ability, but also allow a will save.

Perilous Veil however, is worse. It blinds, deafens, and mutes people for making the save. I wouldn't feel so strongly about it if there was a second will save to prevent the bad stuff, but that sort of mechanic is just asking for abuse. Having less charisma actually becomes an advantage, because then you can drop it in combat and have the bad guys immediately disbelieve.

I realize full casters get blinding beauty, but I don't think the answer to a broken mechanic is to make more of it.

EDIT: Those are just my complaints though, the rest seems pretty good, with some better parts and some iffy parts.

^_^ Hi. I look here for various homebrew things, but I created an account just to post on this one, because I love the Warlock and this rewrite looks absolutely wonderful.

The reason I'm posting, though, is because I was wondering where the tables are supposed to be. Some things reference "the table above" and I see "Table: Warlock" as if it's a header, but there's no actual table under it.


EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anachronity

I don't like some of the no saving throw stuff. The Aberration heritage blast is iffy, it should be useable at will like every single other Warlock ability, but also allow a will save.

Perilous Veil however, is worse. It blinds, deafens, and mutes people for making the save. I wouldn't feel so strongly about it if there was a second will save to prevent the bad stuff, but that sort of mechanic is just asking for abuse. Having less charisma actually becomes an advantage, because then you can drop it in combat and have the bad guys immediately disbelieve.

I realize full casters get blinding beauty, but I don't think the answer to a broken mechanic is to make more of it.

EDIT: Those are just my complaints though, the rest seems pretty good, with some better parts and some iffy parts.

---

In the face of 3.5/Pathfinder's horribly mismatched saving throw math, I would say there's absolutely no problem with things having no save or punishing people worse for ~making~ their save. After all, +5 weapons exist to counter +5 armors, so why is there no +5 wand of casting to counter the +5 cloaks of resistance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyLightning

The reason I'm posting, though, is because I was wondering where the tables are supposed to be. Some things reference "the table above" and I see "Table: Warlock" as if it's a header, but there's no actual table under it.

---

Because the table formatting was recently changed in a forum overhaul, and the tables of some of the older homebrew have not yet been corrected. You can see the raw code for the current (wrongly formatted) tables if you quote the post.

I have taken the tables in the first post, and put them through this table converter:

Spoiler

Show

Level	Base Attack Bonus	Fortitud eSave	Reflex Save	Will Save	Special	Invocations Known	Shapes and Essences
1st	+0	+1	+0	+2	Eldritch blast 1d6, invocations (least)	1	0
2nd	+1	+1	+0	+3	Heritage (1st ability)	2	0
3rd	+2	+2	+1	+3	Detect magic, eldritch blast 2d6	2	1
4th	+3	+2	+1	+4	Heritage (2nd ability)	3	1
5th	+3	+3	+1	+4	Deceive item, eldritch blast 3d6	3	2
6th	+4	+3	+2	+5	Heritage (3rd ability), invocations (lesser)	4	2
7th	+5	+3	+2	+5	Eldritch blast 4d6	5	2
8th	+6/+1	+4	+2	+6	Heritage (4th ability), identify item	5	3
9th	+6/+1	+4	+3	+6	Eldritch blast 5d6, eldritch volley	6	3
10th	+7/+2	+5	+3	+7	Arcane sight, heritage (5th ability)	6	4
11th	+8/+3	+5	+3	+7	Eldritch blast 6d6, invocations (greater)	7	4
12th	+9/+4	+6	+4	+8	Heritage (6th ability)	8	4
13th	+9/+4	+6	+4	+8	Eldritch blast 7d6, eldritch soul	8	5
14th	+10/+5	+6	+4	+9	Heritage (7th ability)	9	5
15th	+11/+6/+1	+7	+5	+9	Eldritch blast 8d6, greater arcane sight	9	6
16th	+12/+7/+2	+7	+5	+10	Heritage (8th ability), invocations (ancestry)	10	6
17th	+12/+7/+2	+8	+5	+10	Eldritch blast 9d6	11	6
18th	+13/+8/+3	+8	+6	+11	Eldritch volley, heritage (9th ability)	11	7
19th	+14/+9/+4	+9	+6	+11	Eldritch blast 10d6	12	7
20th	+15/+10/+5	+9	+6	+12	Heritage (10th ability), renew item	12	8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyLightning

In the face of 3.5/Pathfinder's horribly mismatched saving throw math, I would say there's absolutely no problem with things having no save or punishing people worse for ~making~ their save. After all, +5 weapons exist to counter +5 armors, so why is there no +5 wand of casting to counter the +5 cloaks of resistance?

---

Armor Class and Attack bonus directly counter each other. A fighter can't generally choose to target Will saves unless it's an intimitank. The other 'direct combat' option is combat maneuvers, which are hard to resist but equally hard to boost resistance to. It can be difficult to present a threat to both types of defense at once.

There are three saving throws, of which the average character will only have 1 or 2 good saves. Meanwhile the average caster can force any one of the three (and often combat maneuvers or touch attacks to boot). This leaves the caster the option of selecting the weakest defense, unlike the martial character who can only target armor class or CMD/opposed rolls or sometimes both. Attribute bonuses alone don't do much, since only 3 of the 6 attributes you might boost will give you a save bonus, and even then they give a bonus to only 1 save. Meanwhile casters will always boost their casting stat, which will always boost the DC of any type of save they target (or combat maneuver they make using spells).

The mechanics are different in each case, and cloaks of resistance exist to take away some of the advantage that casters have in being able to select which save to target. The fact also remains that there are many items which boost save DCs, they just don't do so according to an enhancement bonus.

Saying that "yes, casters should also be able to target inverse saves" breaks that system completely. If that mechanic becomes widespread then the result makes no sense: the best wizards are the dumbest ones, the most powerful warlocks are the ones that are nearly comatose, etc. The system exists in the first place to reward investments into offensive options and reasonable character decisions. What Perilous Veil does is allow the keen-minded monk to be defeated more easily by a warlock with a low primary attribute than by one with a high primary attribute, all other factors the same. That being the case, what's the point of a primary attribute?

Perilous Veil is like Retributive Invisibility. If a foe sees through the illusion you have set up around your allies, they get pinged for it. The intent is for use on your allies as, now stay with me here, a Veil.

However, if you want to use one of your actions at high level to do piddly damage and some debuffs, it might work like that, maybe? A foe resisting it being cast on them isn't so much disbelieving it as negating the spell. Disbelief to me suggest that the spell is already in place and is then interacted with to be disbelieved. So the foe would have to make two saves, the first failing and the second succeeding to be struck with those debuffs and some minor damage.

Its not an inverse save, its a consolation prize.

Edit: Though I think there should be a time frame for blind/deaf/mute mentioned. If its permanent, a duration, etc. If its not permanent, then who cares?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeminiZero

Because the table formatting was recently changed in a forum overhaul, and the tables of some of the older homebrew have not yet been corrected. You can see the raw code for the current (wrongly formatted) tables if you quote the post.

I have taken the tables in the first post, and put them through this table converter:

Spoiler

Show

Level	Base Attack Bonus	Fortitud eSave	Reflex Save	Will Save	Special	Invocations Known	Shapes and Essences
1st	+0	+1	+0	+2	Eldritch blast 1d6, invocations (least)	1	0
2nd	+1	+1	+0	+3	Heritage (1st ability)	2	0
3rd	+2	+2	+1	+3	Detect magic, eldritch blast 2d6	2	1
4th	+3	+2	+1	+4	Heritage (2nd ability)	3	1
5th	+3	+3	+1	+4	Deceive item, eldritch blast 3d6	3	2
6th	+4	+3	+2	+5	Heritage (3rd ability), invocations (lesser)	4	2
7th	+5	+3	+2	+5	Eldritch blast 4d6	5	2
8th	+6/+1	+4	+2	+6	Heritage (4th ability), identify item	5	3
9th	+6/+1	+4	+3	+6	Eldritch blast 5d6, eldritch volley	6	3
10th	+7/+2	+5	+3	+7	Arcane sight, heritage (5th ability)	6	4
11th	+8/+3	+5	+3	+7	Eldritch blast 6d6, invocations (greater)	7	4
12th	+9/+4	+6	+4	+8	Heritage (6th ability)	8	4
13th	+9/+4	+6	+4	+8	Eldritch blast 7d6, eldritch soul	8	5
14th	+10/+5	+6	+4	+9	Heritage (7th ability)	9	5
15th	+11/+6/+1	+7	+5	+9	Eldritch blast 8d6, greater arcane sight	9	6
16th	+12/+7/+2	+7	+5	+10	Heritage (8th ability), invocations (ancestry)	10	6
17th	+12/+7/+2	+8	+5	+10	Eldritch blast 9d6	11	6
18th	+13/+8/+3	+8	+6	+11	Eldritch volley, heritage (9th ability)	11	7
19th	+14/+9/+4	+9	+6	+11	Eldritch blast 10d6	12	7
20th	+15/+10/+5	+9	+6	+12	Heritage (10th ability), renew item	12	8

---

Thanks very much :>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anachronity

Armor Class and Attack bonus directly counter each other. A fighter can't generally choose to target Will saves unless it's an intimitank. The other 'direct combat' option is combat maneuvers, which are hard to resist but equally hard to boost resistance to. It can be difficult to present a threat to both types of defense at once.

There are three saving throws, of which the average character will only have 1 or 2 good saves. Meanwhile the average caster can force any one of the three (and often combat maneuvers or touch attacks to boot). This leaves the caster the option of selecting the weakest defense, unlike the martial character who can only target armor class or CMD/opposed rolls or sometimes both. Attribute bonuses alone don't do much, since only 3 of the 6 attributes you might boost will give you a save bonus, and even then they give a bonus to only 1 save. Meanwhile casters will always boost their casting stat, which will always boost the DC of any type of save they target (or combat maneuver they make using spells).

The mechanics are different in each case, and cloaks of resistance exist to take away some of the advantage that casters have in being able to select which save to target. The fact also remains that there are many items which boost save DCs, they just don't do so according to an enhancement bonus.

Saying that "yes, casters should also be able to target inverse saves" breaks that system completely. If that mechanic becomes widespread then the result makes no sense: the best wizards are the dumbest ones, the most powerful warlocks are the ones that are nearly comatose, etc. The system exists in the first place to reward investments into offensive options and reasonable character decisions. What Perilous Veil does is allow the keen-minded monk to be defeated more easily by a warlock with a low primary attribute than by one with a high primary attribute, all other factors the same. That being the case, what's the point of a primary attribute?

---

That logic falls apart when you realize that even targetting a creature's bad save results in a less than 25% success chance when throughout the average playable level range, your spell save DCs rarely go above DC19. If you misjudge and target a creature's good save? Better hope they roll a 1. Disintegrate doesn't deal 2d6 damage per caster level, it deals 17.5 damage, because you have to assume that, by the time you have a sixth-level spell slot for Disintegrate, even a wizard you're throwing it at will have to roll a 1 to take more than the 5d6 minimum damage, if said wizard has a cloak of resistance.

The other thing: I wouldn't even consider a Warlock's casting stat to be their primary. I would consider DEX to be their primary, as every single thing they do is a ranged touch attack, barring a few blast shapes which replace that with a reflex save (why take those? Bleh), with Charisma as their secondary.

Quote:

---

That logic falls apart when you realize that even targetting a creature's bad save results in a less than 25% success chance when throughout the average playable level range, your spell save DCs rarely go above DC19. If you misjudge and target a creature's good save? Better hope they roll a 1. Disintegrate doesn't deal 2d6 damage per caster level, it deals 17.5 damage, because you have to assume that, by the time you have a sixth-level spell slot for Disintegrate, even a wizard you're throwing it at will have to roll a 1 to take more than the 5d6 minimum damage, if said wizard has a cloak of resistance.

The other thing: I wouldn't even consider a Warlock's casting stat to be their primary. I would consider DEX to be their primary, as every single thing they do is a ranged touch attack, barring a few blast shapes which replace that with a reflex save (why take those? Bleh), with Charisma as their secondary.

---

Disintegrate is a 6th level spell which requires at least 16 intelligence to cast, This makes DC 19 the minimum. An 11th-level low-save character has a +3 fortitude save, meaning he will fail that save 75% of the time. Yes, most characters will have more than 10 Constitution by level 11, but most casters will also have more than 16 of their primary stat by level 11. The target might have other bonuses to Fortitude saves, but the caster could also have other bonuses to DC. Since bonuses to save are easier to find than bonuses to DC (thanks to cloaks of resistance and the like!), the target probably has a good 3 points or so more to Fort saves than the caster has to DC, bringing it down to a 60%. You're not going to get much better than that on a bad save without significant multiclassing or huge save boosters (such as a paladin's divine grace).

A primary save at 11th level is a +7, which is only 4 points higher than a low save. This still leaves a 40% chance or so to fail.

Saying that saving throws against spells are auto-saves is simply not true.

Quote:

---

Perilous Veil is like Retributive Invisibility. If a foe sees through the illusion you have set up around your allies, they get pinged for it. The intent is for use on your allies as, now stay with me here, a Veil.

However, if you want to use one of your actions at high level to do piddly damage and some debuffs, it might work like that, maybe? A foe resisting it being cast on them isn't so much disbelieving it as negating the spell. Disbelief to me suggest that the spell is already in place and is then interacted with to be disbelieved. So the foe would have to make two saves, the first failing and the second succeeding to be struck with those debuffs and some minor damage.

Its not an inverse save, its a consolation prize.

Edit: Though I think there should be a time frame for blind/deaf/mute mentioned. If its permanent, a duration, etc. If its not permanent, then who cares?

---

Retributive Invisibility only does damage. If Perilous Veil only did the 5d6 that would be no problem. Similarly, if the spell worked like you said and a foe who was watching you cast it simply negated the spell that also wouldn't be as bad (although you would cast the spell on yourself, not on the foe). However, as it is written only one saving throw occurs regardless of when you cast it (in or out of combat), as long as the opponent has a reason not to believe the illusion is real. In fact, the more obvious you make it that the spell is an illusion, the easier the saving throw becomes, thus the easier it is to inflict the secondary effects of the spell.

While 5d6 damage is underwhelming by the time you get this, inflicting blindness, deafness, and muteness on a potentially large group of enemies (i.e. everyone who can see you, as written) for even a few rounds is huge. This is why Glitterdust is considered to be a great spell.
The combination of these status effects means that...
1. Melee combatants are severely hampered by half speed and a 50% miss chance, in addition to not being aware of where opponents are (blindness)
2. Ranged combatants are essentially useless since they have no idea of where opponents are, and even if they do they suffer the same issues as melee combatants (blindness)
3. Spellcasters are limited to the select few non-verbal spells they have (muteness), and cannot use spells which require line-of-sight (blindness)

Next time you are in a combat, imagine having all three of those conditions for even five rounds. It takes a very unusual build not to be made useless by that combination. Completely shutting someone down like that should offer a saving throw.

Really the only option left would be to intentionally fail the saving throw for disbelief. However, since it's an illusion you would presumably not know when the saving throw is made (while some DMs will tell you to make the save, your character is not supposed to be aware when/if he has made a saving throw for disbelief which makes intentional failure of that saving throw a strange proposition). The best way to defeat a hostile spell should not be to intentionally fail your saving throw against it. That is not what the system is designed for.

Uhm, where's the table?

Tables broke during the recent forum update. A couple of pages back someone converted them to the new format, but a mod hasn't yet been by to insert them into the OP.

EDIT: In fact, the post with the re-formatted table is quoted on this very page, if you'll just scroll up three posts above yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Grue

Tables broke during the recent forum update. A couple of pages back someone converted them to the new format, but a mod hasn't yet been by to insert them into the OP.

EDIT: In fact, the post with the re-formatted table is quoted on this very page, if you'll just scroll up three posts above yours.

---

Thanks. I was looking for an outdated table, so I could use a converter.

But, alas, the ninjas got here first xD

^_^ Question!

Eldritch Blow says that it charges a weapon with your Eldritch Blast (and an Essence if you like) until the start of your next turn, but nowhere does it state that the charge is lost when you hit with that weapon. It doesn't reference the Holding a Charge rules, either.

Is the intent that Eldritch Blow allows you to make full attack actions with, say, a longsword and deal your Eldritch Blast damage each time you hit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyLightning

^_^ Question!

Eldritch Blow says that it charges a weapon with your Eldritch Blast (and an Essence if you like) until the start of your next turn, but nowhere does it state that the charge is lost when you hit with that weapon. It doesn't reference the Holding a Charge rules, either.

Is the intent that Eldritch Blow allows you to make full attack actions with, say, a longsword and deal your Eldritch Blast damage each time you hit?

---

Yes. That was exactly the intent.

Yup, it's a fix for Hideous Blow, which, blows hideously.

There is no table. Please help!

There is one important flaw it this rewrite: It falls well within PF Sorcerer flavor. Hell, it literally is the PF Sorcerer flavor, with all of one or two options that the PF Sorcerer doesn't have which still fit the same flavor. This fits a lot better as a Sorcerer rewrite that a Warlock rewrite. Even the 3.5 Sorcerer has the same flavor, they just don't have the pile of features pointing it out. Overall, it looks like an excuse to have Invocations with the fluff of a Sorcerer. Please look to see if a fluff you're looking to make a class rewrite for already has a class for it, first.

A good fluff niche for this is high bloodline focus Sorcerers, who's magic is highly focused on their bloodline and raw power rather than using the bloodline as a route to cheating at proper arcane magic of the sort Wizards study. Clarifying that normal Warlock pacts matching the required bloodline count for the prerequisite would also make sure that it stays relevant to the normal Warlock.

Oh, and give this thing it's own name. Calling it a 'Warlock' just leads to headaches for those who want to run this in a game with normal 3.5 Warlocks. Maybe 'Heritage Mage'? Something that directly refers to the status of drawing power from bloodlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphic tide

There is one important flaw it this rewrite: It falls well within PF Sorcerer flavor. Hell, it literally is the PF Sorcerer flavor, with all of one or two options that the PF Sorcerer doesn't have which still fit the same flavor. This fits a lot better as a Sorcerer rewrite that a Warlock rewrite. Even the 3.5 Sorcerer has the same flavor, they just don't have the pile of features pointing it out. Overall, it looks like an excuse to have Invocations with the fluff of a Sorcerer. Please look to see if a fluff you're looking to make a class rewrite for already has a class for it, first.

A good fluff niche for this is high bloodline focus Sorcerers, who's magic is highly focused on their bloodline and raw power rather than using the bloodline as a route to cheating at proper arcane magic of the sort Wizards study. Clarifying that normal Warlock pacts matching the required bloodline count for the prerequisite would also make sure that it stays relevant to the normal Warlock.

Oh, and give this thing it's own name. Calling it a 'Warlock' just leads to headaches for those who want to run this in a game with normal 3.5 Warlocks. Maybe 'Heritage Mage'? Something that directly refers to the status of drawing power from bloodlines.

---

First, this clearly -as spelled in the title - intended to be a rewrite for the normal warlock. That is, it meant to replace the normal warlock. Demanding it to be named different because 'cause confusion with the normal warlock' is just silly because they are not intended to play together (you can do that of course, I myself like mix & match the various fighter rewrites, but the rewrite itself has no business accomodating it - that's up to each to the respective player and DM to further adapt the clasess)

On the fluff thing, similiar fluff been used in other class does not at all mean that similiar fluff cannot be used again -fluffs overlap happens in official class, it will much more so with homebrew- especially as MammonAzrael has mentioned that he draws from Warlock's flavor write up in Complete Arcane. Besides, fluff is easily mutable anyway.

Also, not everyone plays or even care for PF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salbazier

First, this clearly -as spelled in the title - intended to be a rewrite for the normal warlocl. That is, it meant to replace the normal warlock. Demanding it to be named different because 'cause confusion with the normal warlock' is just asinine.

On the fluff thing, similiar fluff been used in other class does not at all mean that similiar fluff cannot be used again -fluffs overlap happens in official class, it will much more so with homebrew- especially as MammonAzrael has mentioned that he draws from Warlock's flavor write up in Complete Arcane. Besides, fluff is easily mutable anyway.

Also, not everyone plays or even care for PF.

---

The Warlock name is already taken and actually functions based on a different fluff. Regardless of what CA says, the 3.5 Warlock has a feature literally named pact magic, based solely on the fluff of contracting for power. This is a different class outright, not a rewrite. It needs to be a little more different or significantly less different to justify either being an actually separate class or to be the same class rewritten. At this point, it's not quite different enough for being a different class but too different for an actual rewrite. Multiple classes using the same subsystem are a thing, so there's no reason to basically make a new class altogether to embody a separate fluff said to be a possibility for the background of a class in all of one case.

I'm fine with reusing fluff. I'm not fine with using the exact same fluff for several classes while acting like the other class acting on that fluff in the Core Rulebook doesn't exist. And yes, fluff is ignorable, but if you are making homebrew that replaces an existing class you damn well better not just reuse the fluff of an existing class.

I did mention that the 3.5 Sorcerer uses the magical bloodline interpretation, didn't I? There are first party, as in made by WotC, setups that actually act on that fluff. It's been part of the Sorcerer fluff since core. Core 3.5 just doesn't make use of it.

Another complaint: This class says it works with the 'magic in the blood' approach, but has a bunch of item boosting effects. That's the kind of problem that I see in Artificers, when a class says it does one thing, but actually does that thing and two or three more things. With the Artificer, it's the Homunculus and, debatably, scrolls and potions, which don't really fit Artificer's 'magic item focus' thing and is much more fitting for an alchemy focused class. Artificer should have golems, not homuncului. This class should put more into the 'magic in the blood' thing with the item focus as a variant or AFC. It should have more Heritage things, not magic item things.

I hate classes that do a bunch of only slightly related things, while saying they do only one thing. *glares at PF Alchemist, with the three separated, non-synergisting features*

Uh... Just want to point out this class doesn't trip on the Sorcerer's fluff. Because it was written for 3.5, where sorcerers didn't have heritage-based abilities, or any reference to heritage at all except some throwaway lines about most sorcerers being descended from dragons. You're thinking of the PF sorcerer, which has heritage, with many of the bloodlines overlapping with this class's, as a core concept - but this class was written for 3.5. Not PF. Many people combine 3.5 and PF but not everybody - in a pure 3.5 game this won't have the same fluff as a sorcerer at all.

EDIT: Ok read Morphic's lastet post and he brings up some more points.

On sharing fluff - the 3.5 sorcerer has no features related to heritage. So it's more doing what the sorcerer doesn't do then treading on the same ground.

On pact magic - the warlock 3.5's description implies people are often born with the power, because their ancestors consorted with fey or demons. Some warlocks have pacts, but some don't - or they inherit the pact from their parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImperatorV

Uh... Just want to point out this class doesn't trip on the Sorcerer's fluff. Because it was written for 3.5, where sorcerers didn't have heritage-based abilities, or any reference to heritage at all except some throwaway lines about most sorcerers being descended from dragons. You're thinking of the PF sorcerer, which has heritage, with many of the bloodlines overlapping with this class's, as a core concept - but this class was written for 3.5. Not PF. Many people combine 3.5 and PF but not everybody - in a pure 3.5 game this won't have the same fluff as a sorcerer at all.

EDIT: Ok read Morphic's lastet post and he brings up some more points.

On sharing fluff - the 3.5 sorcerer has no features related to heritage. So it's more doing what the sorcerer doesn't do then treading on the same ground.

On pact magic - the warlock 3.5's description implies people are often born with the power, because their ancestors consorted with fey or demons. Some warlocks have pacts, but some don't - or they inherit the pact from their parents.

---

People who inherit power tend to act very differently with it from those who gain it by deals. Also, some late-3.5 things actually did some basic bloodline stuff for Sorcerers.

Basically, the ones who inherit the power their parents contracted, which this class replaces what should represent the parent it's inherited from, should have significantly different powers from their parents. This class is overwriting it's own backstory, and has abilities that make it incoherent. Namely the item focus, which fits a person who contracted for magic a lot better than someone who was born with it. One class should not represent three different things at the same time. That's what this class is. You have the magic in the items, able to be a class of its own quite easily, the one who made a deal with an outside being which quite definitively doesn't work with Draconic and Titan lineage, and the bloke who got powers from their parentage.

This class fills a rather different fluff niche from the normal Warlock, and the Binder system doesn't do the single contract of power thing at-bloody-all. Binders are people who contract several things for minor, highly specific tasks, not ones who contract with dark beings for permanent, unchanging power like Warlocks do. The premise of using Warlocks as the basis for a power-by-bloodline class is good, but overwriting the Warlock who does, in fact, have an exclusive fluff niche to do it is not the way to go.

Here is the updated table, I sent it to the creator over 3 years ago, maybe he left the forums, but this is the single greatest warlock fix i have seen.

Level	Base Attack Bonus	Fortitude Save	Reflex Save	Will Save	Special	Invocations Known	Shapes and Essences
1st	+0	+1	+0	+2	Eldritch blast 1d6, invocations (least)	1	0
2nd	+1	+1	+0	+3	Heritage (1st ability)	2	0
3rd	+2	+2	+1	+3	Detect magic, eldritch blast 2d6	2	1
4th	+3	+2	+1	+4	Heritage (2nd ability)	3	1
5th	+3	+3	+1	+4	Deceive item, eldritch blast 3d6	3	2
6th	+4	+3	+2	+5	Heritage (3rd ability), invocations (lesser)	4	2
7th	+5	+3	+2	+5	Eldritch blast 4d6	5	2
8th	+6/+1	+4	+2	+6	Heritage (4th ability), identify item	5	3
9th	+6/+1	+4	+3	+6	Eldritch blast 5d6, eldritch volley	6	3
10th	+7/+2	+5	+3	+7	Arcane sight, heritage (5th ability)	6	4
11th	+8/+3	+5	+3	+7	Eldritch blast 6d6, invocations (greater)	7	4
12th	+9/+4	+6	+4	+8	Heritage (6th ability)	8	4
13th	+9/+4	+6	+4	+8	Eldritch blast 7d6, eldritch soul	8	5
14th	+10/+5	+6	+4	+9	Heritage (7th ability)	9	5
15th	+11/+6/+1	+7	+5	+9	Eldritch blast 8d6, greater arcane sight	9	6
16th	+12/+7/+2	+7	+5	+10	Heritage (8th ability), invocations (ancestry)	10	6
17th	+12/+7/+2	+8	+5	+10	Eldritch blast 9d6	11	6
18th	+13/+8/+3	+8	+6	+11	Eldritch volley, heritage (9th ability)	11	7
19th	+14/+9/+4	+9	+6	+11	Eldritch blast 10d6	12	7
20th	+15/+10/+5	+9	+6	+12	Heritage (10th ability), renew item	12	8