Another Big Playtest Post from Michele Carter

[GrinningBuddha]

Disappointed to hear about the warlock. I guess I just don't see any reason why the class should be limited to drawing power from dark sources.

I was under the impression that warlocks are not restricted to infernal power sources. I'm sure I remember reading about celestial powered warlocks. Hmmm...

 

[med stud]

Disappointed to hear about the warlock. I guess I just don't see any reason why the class should be limited to drawing power from dark sources. Oh well, something to look forward to in 5e.

Otherwise, I liked most of what I read. I really enjoy reading Michele's writing.

Michele said "they draw on dangerous, untamable sources of power". That doesn't imply dark forces IMO. I think that description fits the concept of wilderness and oceans perfectly, for example (like a warlock that gets her powers from the Feywild).

 

[PeterWeller]

Disappointed to hear about the warlock. I guess I just don't see any reason why the class should be limited to drawing power from dark sources. Oh well, something to look forward to in 5e.

"Dangerous and untamable" sources aren't necessarily "dark" sources. She specifically said she originally wanted to play a bright and cheery warlock, so one would suppose that is also a possibility.

I really like the sound of everything, the variety of special abilities the classes possess all sound really fitting, and more importantly, really fun. Knocking someone prone with my rogue, then falling on them with my dagger the next round for nasty sneak attack damage? Yes, please. Paladins possessing a useful taunt power that is fluffy and doesn't break immersion? I'm on board.

I'm beginning to get the slight impression that a Paladin's talents will lie in standing down a big nasty, while fighters will be, ever so slightly, more geared towards wading through/holding off hordes of mooks. I would like this to be the case.

And on the miniatures note, IMO miniatures and detailed tactical combat make D&D more fun.

 

[Khuxan]

Disappointed to hear about the warlock. I guess I just don't see any reason why the class should be limited to drawing power from dark sources. Oh well, something to look forward to in 5e.

Looks like the designers agree with you: "The class is dark, yes, but there’s room in their concept for other styles of play".

 

[FadedC]

Oooh, I gotta second this... having game-designer jargon sitting out there in the open like this really hurts immersion. It's like sticking DPS stats in the weapon charts or something.

Three words for you

"Plus One Sword"

Having a completely out of game character description contain information on a character's role (which has pretty much always been the case) is fairly minor compared to having the in game name of an item contain game mechanics information (even if you like most people probably found another name for it).

 

[Bishmon]

"Dangerous and untamable" sources aren't necessarily "dark" sources. She specifically said she originally wanted to play a bright and cheery warlock, so one would suppose that is also a possibility.

My concern isn't that I won't be able to play a good-aligned warlock, it's that I won't be able to play a warlock that gets his powers from anything other than dark sources. If someone wants to play a good warlock who gets his power from infernal or feral sources, great, by all means that should be a viable option.

But why can't I play a warlock who gets his powers from the heavens? Or from the good-aligned, mischievous fey? It's just too limiting for a core class, in my opinion. And with them opening the paladin up to more character options, it was something I thought they were moving away from.

But that's just my concern. I'm still holding out hope that the warlock will surprise me, but the more they talk about it, the less likely that seems to be.

 

[PeterWeller]

...feral sources...
But why can't I play a warlock who gets his powers from the good-aligned, mischievous fey?

I'm not 100% on this, but I think that might be the answer. As for celestial or holy pacts, they just don't seem like they'd fit the class's fluff and character. Good or beneficial spirits, on the other hand, make a great fit. I could see the crazy old wizard from the Conan film (I pretend that second one didn't happen) as a warlock in service to good, or at least neutral spirits.

 

[Ahglock]

I'm beginning to get the slight impression that a Paladin's talents will lie in standing down a big nasty, while fighters will be, ever so slightly, more geared towards wading through/holding off hordes of mooks. I would like this to be the case.

Being geared to dealing with mooks is just another way of saying side kick. So no I don't want to see that for any class. Every class should have its role in taking down the real enemy in the fight, not just playing cleanup while the hero of the tale takes on the boss.

 

[Bishmon]

I'm not 100% on this, but I think that might be the answer.

Merriam Webster mentions fierce, wild, and brutal within the entry for feral. If that's the best chance for something not dark, I'm not exactly holding my breath, you know?

As for celestial or holy pacts, they just don't seem like they'd fit the class's fluff and character.

But that's the point. To me, there's no reason the class fluff should limit the class in the way it seemingly does. I don't understand why there shouldn't be room for pacts with various good-aligned creatures.

 

[PeterWeller]

Merriam Webster mentions fierce, wild, and brutal within the entry for feral. If that's the best chance for something not dark, I'm not exactly holding my breath, you know?

That's the problem with using dictionary definitions, though; feral might mean fey spirits (as opposed to fey like Elves and Eladrin) in 4E D&Disms. That's the impression I've been getting so far.

But that's the point. To me, there's no reason the class fluff should limit the class in the way it seemingly does. I don't understand why there shouldn't be room for pacts with various good-aligned creatures.

I understand, but it seems like the core conceit of the warlock, he or she gains powers from an outsider but not divine source doesn't really seem like it fits with gaining powers from a celestial or holy power. Angels and their ilk always struck me as servants of higher powers who wouldn't strike out and start granting power on their own. Now, that doesn't mean there's not a whole hose of other ways you could have good patrons for warlocks. Ancestor spirits, totemic spirits, and spirits of such things as "hearth and home" or "high harvests" or "the city streets" could all potentially be patrons for your warlocks; well, maybe not the last one.