Warlock and Sorcerer

[MoonSong]

I disagree. Preparation is a big enough limit, I don't think it's necessary to have to guess how many fireballs I might need on any given day. If it doesn't break the cleric, I don't see why it would break the wizard.



Just to clarify, I would remove the restriction from casting spells in armor, but I wouldn't give wizards any armor proficiencies by default. Some traditions, like warmages, might have that option, though.

Well, for starters Clerics have less slots than the wizard, and an overall more focussed spell list with far less niche-invading spells, and they need the tactical flexibility in order to be good battlefield healers, otherwise they would have to preppare only healing spells, and second it fits with the flavor of the class. It sure should be painful to play a blaster wizard, I don't feel like I could run one, the only wizard I've ever played was a diviner, but it is the cost for knowing an unlimited number of spells and having the ability to switch niches overnight, that oppossed to sorcerers and warlocks that are stuck within a niche for their whole careers, tactical flexibility and wearing armor are what keeps them more or less competitive compared with wizards, giving those to the wizards is like taking away a kid's very treassured special plushie to give it to the spoiled kid that already has more toys than he can play with on all of his childhood.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I won't comment on the relative power of these two classes because knocking a d6 off here and adding a cantrip there is easy - and that sort of balance will hopefully be the focus of later play testing where the ore ideas are more settled. However I will comment on the impression or feel of these classes, just great! I always found the difference between 3 E sorcerer and wizard to be lame as a class niche. These two classes nail it, very different spell casting and features. I always loved the 2E speciality clerics and Fantasy Craft's priest class, and to a lesser extent Pathfinder's bloodlines. These carry on in that vein, what great flavor backed up mechanically.

And the min maxer in me wants to eldritch blast at 3d6!

 

[On Puget Sound]

I found another error: the recommended gear for a Sorcerer includes a Greatsword. Sorcerers are proficient in Martial melee weapons, but a Greatsword is a Heavy weapon, not Martial.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I was wondering that too, but I think that heavy is a part of martial but just not able to be used by small characters.

 

[Falling Icicle]

One thing I don't like is warlocks having to "pray" to their patron for more "favors." Warlocks are arcane casters, not divine casters. Once they have made their pact and paid its price, their power should be entirely their own, to use as they see fit. The idea of having to get down and beg for more power after every encounter is a big turn off for me. I'd play a cleric if I wanted to beg some higher power for spells all the time.

 

[The Shadow]

I view the warlock 'beseeching' as more like a business transaction than an act of worship. Along the lines of 'pay up, I'm out', though in a very respectful tone (to somebody who can squash you like a bug, after all).

'Beseech' was perhaps a poorly-chosen word, as it implies the distinct possibility of refusal. If the warlock has held up his side of the bargain, the patron should hold up theirs. Though the word 'favor' does imply a certain amount of brown-nosing.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I view the warlock 'beseeching' as more like a business transaction than an act of worship. Along the lines of 'pay up, I'm out', though in a very respectful tone (to somebody who can squash you like a bug, after all).

'Beseech' was perhaps a poorly-chosen word, as it implies the distinct possibility of refusal. If the warlock has held up his side of the bargain, the patron should hold up theirs. Though the word 'favor' does imply a certain amount of brown-nosing.

The way I see it, the warlock discovers the forbidden rites that let him contact one of the strange otherworldly entitities that grant pacts. The patron then offers the warlock great power, but at a price. The warlock agrees. The deal is struck. The warlock then has that power implanted in his soul or whatever, and then, it's his, permanently. It can't be revoked or taken away at that point, nor should he ever have to beg to have it refreshed. Once the pact is sealed, that should be it. The patron shouldn't be able to take it away, and the warlock likewise can't back out of the drawbacks that come with it (and which grow as his power does).

The idea that he has to keep going back to his patron to refuel his powers makes warlocks too much like divine casters, rather than cunning oathbreakers that seek out forbidden magic as a way of cheating to get power that mortals aren't meant to have.

[Edit] There's another reason I think warlocks shouldn't have to keep going back to their patron for power. What if that patron being dies? What if Verenestra gets ganked by adventurers? The warlock shouldn't be out of luck if that happens. In fact, I can see a warlock hunting down his patron as part of an epic adventure. Maybe he made a pact with an archfiend but then turned against him, so the archfiend has been sending demons and cultists to hunt him down. The warlock should be able to kill that archfiend without losing his powers.

 

[Underman]

Looking at the source fiction for warlocks, I think warlocks should do some brown-nosing or favor-beseeching or whatever you call it.

4E warlocks seem to get a free pass. Any consequences of these dark dealings (which would be very interesting to roleplay) were AFAICT delegated to the DM and player, and it some gaming groups avoid it altogether. Which, if true, is convenient, but convenient doesn't match my expectations of the archetype.

 

[The Shadow]

Perhaps. Though the sort of caster outlined in the current warlock class is certainly flavorful and has plenty of fictional precedent.

The name isn't the best, I grant, but then it never was.

EDIT: This was in reply to Falling Icicle.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Looking at the source fiction for warlocks, I think warlocks should do some brown-nosing or favor-beseeching or whatever you call it.

4E warlocks seem to get a free pass. Any consequences of these dark dealings (which would be very interesting to roleplay) were AFAICT delegated to the DM and player, and it some gaming groups avoid it altogether. Which, if true, is convenient, but convenient doesn't match my expectations of the archetype.

The type of warlock that serves demons and such for power is quite controversial. While some warlocks may choose to maintain such a relationship with their patron, I don't think all warlocks should have to.

The word warlock means "oath breaker." I want to be able to forge a pact with a demon, take the fiendish powers it grants, tell it "hey thanks!", flip it the bird and then use those dark powers for good. If that character concept is "wrong," I don't want to be right.

I'm not saying that warlock pacts shouldn't come with drawbacks. That's the price that comes with taking that shortcut to power. I just don't want to be forced to have to "pray" to my patron to get my expendable powers back. Once the pact has been sealed, I should never have to deal with my patron again.