Proposal: Delete Eldritch Strike house rule.

[TwoHeadsBarking]

She literrally did more cold than fire damage in the big fights.

Which would be ideal for a warlock whose patron was from Stygia (Stygia's the ice level of hell, right? With the guy frozen in the iceberg?).

Also, it's the only class that requires you to have a power.

Err, not true, but it is the pre-Essentials class with the most limited choice of at-wills.

 

[renau1g]

What other classes require a specific at-will?

 

[Ozymandias79]

shamans

 

[stonegod]

Many of the Essential classes are built with a forced at will.

Pre-Essential: None that I can think of.

 

[Walking Dad]

I personally feel it doesn't take away from flavour. Really, the pact power isn't that big a thing IMO. The curse is more flavourful. Hell, the fact that tiefling's make better Feylocks make's no sense, but that's the way it is. Also, PC's are free to select whatever other powers they want, so really an infernal'lock can grab all Fey'lock powers... should we also police that? Really, I don't care what a player wants to select.

...

Yet, there are feats that change the curse effects...

And shamans and essential characters still have to take predetermined powers.

The proposal is not about to police more than WotC, but about the need of a houserule that get rid of the problem of only one class, but it is a problem other classes share.

It is not:

'Is giving the choice to ignore the warlock's pact at-will bad?'

but

'Is it necessary to have a house rule to allow warlocks to ignore the warlock's pact at-will?'

Maybe no for the first, but a certain no for the second, IMHO.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Which would be ideal for a warlock whose patron was from Stygia (Stygia's the ice level of hell, right? With the guy frozen in the iceberg?).

Well, given that she had only one cold power (a daily), I wouldn't say it was that ideal for this theme either (not sufficient, at any rate). If that was the theme, a better move would have been to ask a houserule to have Hellish Rebuke become 'Frostbite' (same power but cold damage) rather then dispensing with the pact power altohether for two bland at-will, IMO. I don't remember that her demon was cold themed, though. I remember no theme, in fact.

The most memorable and distinctive thing about Tsi'Ri was her familiar which was a third eye with independant will. It differenciated her from all other warlocks and I really liked it. So I tried to reinforce her most distinctive feature by granting her a tattoo with appropriate powers and fluffed it as an extension of her mystical third eyed. I was really happy about that treasure choice... but the player sold the tattoo! It left me rather nonplussed, I tell you that! Elecgraystone prefered having 20% of its value in cash and stick strictly to the wish list.

There is no denying that PC was very effective, though. And there is nothing wrong with his/her choice. This anecdote just illustrate a difference in philosophy. That mini-clash between her style and mine lead to some of the frustration expressed by the player in the recently ressurected thread about letting players trade items. Hopefully, that's not why the player left L4W (Tsi'Ri did go on another adventure under a different DM before going MIA). Not sure I would do anything different, though; I am entitled to my own philosophy and freedom.

But this why I am opposed to removing the houserule. Personnally, I'd never make a warlock that dispenses with the pact's signature power altogether, but that's my choice. People should always have as much freedom as is reasonable in a communal gaming world. Anything that pertains solely to the PC should be left entirely in the hand of the player. It's kind of the Habeas Corpus of RPGs!

 

[CaBaNa]

I can't believe I just did that... Hear hear!

I hate that exp aren't edit able.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

''Here, Here, Hear, Hear!''

That sounds like ridiculously peppy way to see : ''If you ever someone to talk to, I'm here for you.''

How sweet. Thank you, buddy.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

The house rule exists to accomodate a player who no longer game here. I can't remember the name, but the PC was TsiRi, a githyanki infernal warlock (I DMed her so she is in my library). She loved being in melee so she took the eldtritch strike power but she prefered the Eldritch blast to the Hellish Rebuke pact power. So she asked and obtained an houserule so that she could take both eldritch strike and bolt instead of picking one and being forced to use Hellish Rebuke. I am pretty sure no one else ever did that.

Actually somebody (I assume Ts'iri based on what you just said) requested that warlocks be allowed to choose their at-wills openly before Eldritch Strike was even released. We didn't go for it, but once we noticed that as written (pre-errata) nobody but humans could take Eldritch Strike, she asked for the rule to be "can replace either at-will" rather than the more obvious "can replace Eldritch Blast". It's not just that she preferred Eldritch Blast to Hellish Rebuke, she hated Hellish Rebuke, but loved the Infernal pact boon, and really hated that she couldn't choose one without the other.

And IIRC, even if nobody else actually took the option, a lot of people said they felt the same way when it was being debated, so it wasn't chosen just for Ts'iri.

It is not:

'Is giving the choice to ignore the warlock's pact at-will bad?'

but

'Is it necessary to have a house rule to allow warlocks to ignore the warlock's pact at-will?'

Maybe no for the first, but a certain no for the second, IMHO.

I agree, and I don't recall which way I voted originally, but I would probably vote against it now if it came up and I were still a judge. But the rule already exists so I don't see any reason to revisit it now when nothing major has changed.

 

[renau1g]

Well...Joe I do believe you are still officially a judge (assuming you want to). You were moved to "inactive". It's a simple matter of adjusting the Charter to move you back to active.