Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6207528" data-attributes="member: 78752">Thematically, yes, a warlock and a cleric have clear similarities, although I would put the warlock into yet a third category: his pact is somewhere between the cleric's and paladin's -- the warlock's patron grants a permanent, regenerating pool of power, but it is up to the warlock how to use that power moment to moment.  Similarly, devotions are not demanded of the warlock contemporaneously -- rather, a delay in compensation has generally been negotiated, usually involving the warlock's immortal soul.Ultimately, that's not important to this model.  What matters to this model is whether or not they play similarly.The cleric and paladin have very similar playstyles.  They are mid- to front-line combatants with healing and buff spell-like abilities.  The warlock, on the other hand, is squishy and focuses mostly on debuffs and damage.  That puts him solidly in the wizard camp.Despite his cleric-like play, the paladin is a feat track because the cleric already has a combat subclass (the war domain), and while it would be completely possible to make paladin a subclass of fighter, I think it adds a lot more to the game for paladin-like abilities to be an add-on to any class.  There's nothing about the fighter that suggests a buffing/healing subclass any more than there is for any other class, and opening it up into a feat track permits emulation of narrow concepts like the invoker and avenger with a minimum of superfluous rulesets.Why isn't the warlock a feat track?  What it really comes down to, again, is the spell list.  A warlock without a spell list is an odd bird -- at least, it seems so to me.</blockquote>

Verification