Warlocks not warlockey anymore

[Plane Sailing]

I think that the big differentiator in Warlocks in play is going to be their 'striker' angle, and the big thematic difference is that (various) pacts.

Of course, this is a big, big unknown )), but the pacts have the potential to really make warlocks feel different to wizards IMO.

Cheers

 

[Abstraction]

Haven't we only seen level 1 for warlock? They could get all blasty-shaped as they level, after all.

 

[Wulfram]

In 4e, WotC has clearly taken a decision to make all classes work in a similar way, with all classes working on the same basic per day/per encounter/per day set up,.

This does seem to take away some of the individuality of classes compared to 3e, which even in core had 3 distinct systems and gained quite a few more, but it should also help keep the game better balanced.

The Wizard with new mechanics type classes, like the Warlock and the Sorceror, will just need to find new things to justify their existance.

 

[hargert]

As I said I understand balance but I would hate it if all classes felt the same. This is not a video game that you play with random people via the web, it does not need 100% perfect balance if it comes at the cost of every class playing the same way. (not saying that this is the case). I like classes each having their own thing and playing differently and that is what I loved about the Warlock is it did play differently then the other classes. I for one do hope that as we get to see the leveling up stuff it will add to each class and make them feel less "sameness"

 

[Surgoshan]

I don't think you'll have to worry about sameness. The rogue and rangers are both striker classes, right? But they play (so far as I can tell) completely differently because one is ranged and the other is supposed to move in and out of melee. The organization and use of powers may be the same, but the fact that the powers have such wildly different effects should mean the classes play entirely differently.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The etymology of the word Warlock isn't : 'One who uses his powers at will'. It's 'One who breaks faith.'

Basically, the core of what it means to be a warlock is to make pact with unholy beings for powers, so in that sense I'd say the warlock is more 'warlockey' then ever. The powers of the sample warlock character are especially evocative in that respect.

 

[hargert]

I am basing it on the 3.5 version that was released with Complete Arcane, not what general people feel a "Warlock" is. Yes it is not a male witch or as you said someone who "breaks faith". In fact the orginal did not even need to be the one who made the pact in the first place it could have been his great grandfather who did. And while powers at will are not part of the name it was a big part of what made them different from the classes that came before.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Things like curses, specific pact-abilities, improvements to Eldritch-blast, wearing armour will be what distinguishes the Warlock.

 

[Valdrax]

My question is does a direct pact and some wonky curses make the warlock feel like the Warlock of old?

If the Warlock, to you, is nothing but mechanics: No.
If the Warlock, to you, is largely about flavor: Yes, but...

The new Warlock's flavor is firmly fused with the Binder from Tome of Magic. The Infernal Warlock may track quite well with the old Warlock. Mechanically, however, he's completely different with an entirely different role and focus in mind. I think it's an improvement, actually.

I don't think you'll have to worry about sameness. The rogue and rangers are both striker classes, right? But they play (so far as I can tell) completely differently because one is ranged and the other is supposed to move in and out of melee.

Off-topic:

I think this is a common misinterpretation of the two classes. Rogues can act at range. Sneak Attack and Deft Strike (as shown in the preview) both work with slings & crossbows. Rangers can act in melee. Biggie Smalls, from WotC_Huscarl's blog, is clearly a melee Ranger.

I think the difference between the classes is that the Rogue slips past defenses, and the Ranger relies on accuracy. The difference is subtle, but telling. Rogues get attacks that bypass armor and leave people bleeding. Rangers get attacks that trade damage for to-hit bonus and attacks that tag multiple targets.

The Rogue powers show so far show a bias towards melee, and the DDXP Ranger was set up as an archer first and foremost, but I don't think that's what really *defines* the difference between the two.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I get the game balance part of it, but then what makes a Warlock? Is he just a single target hitting wizard with slightly better armor? What is his "thing" that makes him stand out and make people want to play one?

In 4th edition, classes are no longer distinguished as much by mechanics as by theme. A Wizard, Warlock and even Fighter function much the same way, but they differ significantly in what their powers do and their overall style and role. In 4th edition, classes are more about theme than different forms of resource management.

Even in 3rd edition, Warlocks had a very strong flavor that set them apart from other arcanists. They were mortals who were imbued with power by some distant patron for some mysterious or nefarious purpose. But even though his power came from fiends, fey, or something else, a Warlock could use that power however he wanted. This theme hasn't really changed.

What makes a Warlock different from a Wizard in 4th edition? Not only the striker role, but pacts and the style of his spells. If anything, I'd say Warlocks are actually more different now. Instead of largely copying Wizard spells, they now have their own, unique spell list that is entirely different from what Wizards get.