The Newest Warlock Handbook [3.5]

[VoltaicVitriol]

It's still better to shoot as a standard... it's a touch attack that way.

Probably, I'm just pointing out that Hideous Blow is not entirely terrible. IF, for some reason, you wanted to do a 'Belmont' build taking advantage of Scout and Warlock combined to add a ridiculous number of d6's of damage to attacks with an enchanted whip, Hideous Blow is an option to increase the damage on your chosen weapon.

[Eloel]

Probably, I'm just pointing out that Hideous Blow is not entirely terrible. IF, for some reason, you wanted to do a 'Belmont' build taking advantage of Scout and Warlock combined to add a ridiculous number of d6's of damage to attacks with an enchanted whip, Hideous Blow is an option to increase the damage on your chosen weapon.

The bolded part is the only redeeming quality here. Ghost Touch is one that comes to mind that triumphs over the regular shots.

[Snowbluff]

You could, but keep in mind that it also eats an invocation slot.

[VoltaicVitriol]

The bolded part is the only redeeming quality here. Ghost Touch is one that comes to mind that triumphs over the regular shots.

I like the ones that force subsequent saves as well. Lightburst, Cursespewing, etc.

[VoltaicVitriol]

You could, but keep in mind that it also eats an invocation slot.

As does Eldritch Glaive. My only point was that EG is not UNIVERSALLY superior, only MOSTLY superior. There is a spot in some build for HB, rare and situational as it may be.

[danzibr]

AH-HA!

I saw 2 Warlock handbooks on the front page, opened both to compare them, became thoroughly confused, then noticed ThiagoMartell is banned (pity, that; I liked him).

Anyway. I've always liked Warlocks. Looking forward to updates.

[Snowbluff]

AH-HA!
Looking forward to updates.

If you want update, argue with this man. I'll update based on the results.

[danzibr]

If you want update, argue with this man. I'll update based on the results.

Ah. I just noticed a few things were blank, and there's no mention of gear, for example. I don't mean changing things already in place.

Pity there's no official Totemist/Warlock PrC (to my knowledge).

[Troacctid]

One thing the handbook does have incorrect about hideous blow is this:

With Concentration checks to avoid attacks of opportunity being as easy as they are, this somehow manages to be worse than simply using an unshaped Eldritch Blast at point blank.

Concentration can only eliminate the opportunity attack provoked by spellcasting; it doesn't help you if you're making a ranged attack. An unshaped eldritch blast provokes an attack of opportunity even if you cast it defensively. Hideous blow doesn't.

[Eloel]

One thing the handbook does have incorrect about hideous blow is this:

Concentration can only eliminate the opportunity attack provoked by spellcasting; it doesn't help you if you're making a ranged attack. An unshaped eldritch blast provokes an attack of opportunity even if you cast it defensively. Hideous blow doesn't.

Are you suggesting one provokes two AoOs from an enemy with Combat Reflexes, just for shooting an EB?

[VoltaicVitriol]

Ah. I just noticed a few things were blank, and there's no mention of gear, for example. I don't mean changing things already in place.

Pity there's no official Totemist/Warlock PrC (to my knowledge).

There is not. Which is a shame, because both are excellent classes for 1- and 2- level dips.

[VoltaicVitriol]

One thing the handbook does have incorrect about hideous blow is this:

Concentration can only eliminate the opportunity attack provoked by spellcasting; it doesn't help you if you're making a ranged attack. An unshaped eldritch blast provokes an attack of opportunity even if you cast it defensively. Hideous blow doesn't.

By that logic, a sorcerer defensively casting a Scorching Ray would still provoke an attack of opportunity. I don't think it quite works that way. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Snowbluff]

Pity there's no official Totemist/Warlock PrC (to my knowledge).

You can get into Anima Mage with early entry cheese. With the CL=EB ruling from the writer, you don't miss out on much.

[Troacctid]

By that logic, a sorcerer defensively casting a Scorching Ray would still provoke an attack of opportunity.

Indeed.

You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. This doesn't apply to other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity.

You can cast a spell defensively to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, but if you then make a ranged attack (or unarmed attack, or disarm attempt, etc.) as part of the spell, you still provoke.

Are you suggesting one provokes two AoOs from an enemy with Combat Reflexes, just for shooting an EB?

That seems like a poor tactical decision. One should probably take a five-foot step first, to get out of their threatened area.

[VoltaicVitriol]

You can get into Anima Mage with early entry cheese. With the CL=EB ruling from the writer, you don't miss out on much.

I believe Ur-Priest is another easy early-entry from Warlock. Too bad the Eldritch Disciple's entry requirements preclude Ur-Lock Disciple synergy

[Eloel]

That seems like a poor tactical decision. One should probably take a five-foot step first, to get out of their threatened area.

Because enemies with combat reflexes never have reach.



You do not "cast a spell" and then "make a ranged attack". The touch attack is part of the spell, which means if the spell is defensive, you don't get AoO'd.

[Troacctid]

You do not "cast a spell" and then "make a ranged attack". The touch attack is part of the spell, which means if the spell is defensive, you don't get AoO'd.

I mean, can you quote a rule that explicitly says this?

I'll concede that it's not written clearly, but I think most DMs would rule it my way.

[Eloel]

I mean, can you quote a rule that explicitly says this?

I'll concede that it's not written clearly, but I think most DMs would rule it my way.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Rule 1- Touch attacks do not provoke AoO.
Rule 2- Touch attacks come in two flavors, melee and ranged.
Combined: Ranged touch attacks do not provoke AoO

This is my reading of it, either way.

[Socratov]

Speaking of rules lawyering, where does it say that EB is an invocation? The text in CArc indicates it's an ability and not an invocation (which are mentioned seperately). Nowehere does it say that EB's trigger AoO's, as opposed to Invocations, which are explicitly stated to trigger AoO's. Now all you need is PBS to eliminate the melee range penalty and you're golden.

[Psyren]

Rule 1- Touch attacks do not provoke AoO.
Rule 2- Touch attacks come in two flavors, melee and ranged.
Combined: Ranged touch attacks do not provoke AoO

This is my reading of it, either way.

By that reading, attacking with a bow should not provoke either, because you are clearly armed. No, that makes no sense - ranged attacks provoke, touch or no touch, and so does using an SLA.

[Eloel]

By that reading, attacking with a bow should not provoke either, because you are clearly armed. No, that makes no sense - ranged attacks provoke, touch or no touch, and so does using an SLA.

Attacking with a bow is clearly not a ranged touch attack. There are cases where it targets touch AC, but it doesn't make it a ranged touch attack.

[Psyren]

Attacking with a bow is clearly not a ranged touch attack. There are cases where it targets touch AC, but it doesn't make it a ranged touch attack.

Irrelevant - your quote above about not provoking is due to being armed. This implies that being armed with any ranged attack will not provoke, when that is not the case. But since you're looking for the phrase "ranged touch attack" - by your reasoning, throwing a net should not provoke either.

[Eloel]

Irrelevant - your quote above about not provoking is due to being armed. This implies that being armed with any ranged attack will not provoke, when that is not the case. But since you're looking for the phrase "ranged touch attack" - by your reasoning, throwing a net should not provoke either.

The said text is under the Touch Spells in Combat header. Net was not a spell the last time I checked, so that paragraph is irrelevant to nets.

[Psyren]

The said text is under the Touch Spells in Combat header. Net was not a spell the last time I checked, so that paragraph is irrelevant to nets.

EB is not a spell either, so it is equally irrelevant to your header.

EB in melee provokes twice - once for being an SLA, and once for being a ranged attack.

[Eloel]

EB is not a spell either, so it is equally irrelevant to your header.

EB in melee provokes twice - once for being an SLA, and once for being a ranged attack.

A SLA, by definition, is like a spell.

[Psyren]

A SLA, by definition, is like a spell.

Indeed, and SLAs provoke, as do ranged attacks (touch or not.)

[Troacctid]

Ranged touch spells don't require you to touch the opponent. If they did, they'd be melee touch spells.

[Eloel]

Indeed, and SLAs provoke, as do ranged attacks (touch or not.)

Noone is saying you can't houserule it that way.

[Snowbluff]

Noone is saying you can't houserule it that way.

It's a guide, so I can't.

With that in mind, does something in the guide need to be changed?

[Psyren]

Noone is saying you can't houserule it that way.

Ahh, the passive-aggressive "your stance is a houserule" post. GitP bingo!

Tell you what - when you find a page reference that contradicts DMG 290, RC 8 and PHB 24/135, do get back to me.