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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6599536" data-attributes="member: 6790260">*slow clap* Well done. You managed to combine the "it's a tabletop, not an MMO!" snobbery with "roleplaying, not rollplaying!" snobbery. Impressive work. </sarcasm>More seriously, is it really necessary to cast such aspersions? There's a vast excluded middle between "I ONLY PLAY MATHEMATICALLY PERFECT CHARACTERS" and "What's an 'attack bonus'? Dammit, I'm a roleplayer, not a GAMER!" Maybe people want...I dunno...both things?Other than the first sentence, none of the first paragraph appears to have any bearing on the actual question asked by the OP. And the last two bits (questions and answers, not sure if those count as separate sentences) blithely dismiss that issue. You seem to be thinking that its not-a-primary-caster status is a minor bump on the road to getting to the cool stuff. The way the OP speaks, its non-primary status is the problem. The player wants to be slinging SPELL spells in combat, and that isn't happening.I...don't think that's actually what was being said, there. I think what was being said was, "The Warlock provides nothing that cannot be done more effectively, more simply, or more flexibly by a different casting class...once you have all the flavorful stuff." It's not that you SHOULD *always* make Warlocks go to 20 levels of the class, it's that there's little to nothing worth taking from it at those high levels.It's incredibly frustrating to have these kinds of conversations almost guaranteed to be sidetracked by "jeez guys, ever heard of choosing flavor???" comments. Choosing flavor is what we WANT. We just don't want flavor to be a sacrifice for no good reason, since there are plenty of character concepts that never have to sacrifice one bit of power for their flavor. It's the unfairness of that--that some character concepts are just straight-up shortchanged compared to others--that drives us mad.And for those who think there should be meaningful mechanical differences between magical effects and non-magical effects, even though the overall quantities of power, utility, and flavor are/should be more-or-less equivalent between the two?Funny, the whole playtest seemed to say that this is not the case; that the nature of the mechanics has a distinct impact on the feel and flavor of the game. If it's all pure numbers which can be described any way you want, why did the designers have to re-build the Fighter four or five times before they "got it right"?Ehren already covered this, but it bears repeating: No, it's not, because that's explicitly what the Barbarian does, and the Barbarian's features clearly and explicitly support such activity. I still think that it's a painfully bland class (the Totem Barb has inklings of a much more interesting class, but it's all nascent and underdeveloped). By comparison, the Warlock is billed as being on the same playing field as Sorcerers and Wizards, but straight-up isn't. The only direct equivalent I can think of for this would be if the 4e Slayer were billed as a Defender like all other types of Fighter, despite being built to be a Striker. Of course, in 4e, it would be trivial to prove such statements false (Slayers don't have marking mechanics nor mark punishment, but do have a very clear Striker class feature in Power Attack), so it's not perfectly analogous, but it would be close.Yeah...it's not like any version of D&D has ever had 10-level breakpoints where you select new options...*cough*Such a concept of..."echelons" of power, where you pick up..."elite advancements" and, I dunno, "legendary fates" would be super cool. It's too bad D&D has never embraced this kind of thing....We must frequent vastly different sections of the internet. The dependency of the Fighter (*especially* the Battlemaster) on short rests is definitely a bone of contention for some people. "Everybody" does not think it's fine. Some do. Some vehemently do not.How well does the description of the class communicate that you shouldn't be casting spells most of the time? Does it say or imply that Warlocks should be using magic in the same way Wizards and Sorcerers do? Because if it doesn't communicate that Warlock spells are extremely precious and only appropriate for special circumstances, then the writeup is to blame.I agree. I think it is a serious failure on the part of the authors to create a class, that diverges heavily from the way others of its kind work, and do diddly-squat to communicate the change in expectations. I hated this BS obscurantism in 3e, and I still hate it now.</blockquote>

Verification