Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6251558" data-attributes="member: 2067">I would expect the warlock to remain a seperate class in 5e because legacy buzzword shenanigans.&nbsp; BUTI'm sympathetic here. It seems like the major difference is the TYPE of patron: a &quot;god&quot; vs. some other entity. That distinction can't help but be kind of arbitrary.And I like the vibe of a divine warlock. It creates a much better story for dark magic, a dichotomy between the &quot;approved&quot; gods and the &quot;dark&quot; gods that is rife with interesting distinction and variety. A warlock makes a much better evil priest than the cleric! I don't think it'd be a major problem to do that re-write, though.It works, it's just not always consistent with the expectations of the class. Lots of sorcerers have &quot;accidentally burned up my family&quot; as backstory (the minor tricks are for toddlers!). Clerics define their look by determining what deity they have emblazoned on their shield. Warlocks who don't know their patron don't know if it's fey or alien or what yet. By level 1, a character is usually assumed to be competent in their class (even if they're not focused). I think I'd go the other way with it:Cleric: At level 1, they are priests of their gods and wield divine magic. At level 3, they get initiated into deeper mysteries. Perhaps they can now bless items in the name of their gods! (Some kind of perhaps-temporary item creation?)Warlock: At level 1, they have a pact with their patron. At level 3, they ...get initiated into deeper mysteries. Perhaps they are given a gift from their patron (free magic item?)Sorcerer: At level 1, they have tapped into their bloodline. At level 3, they...maybe start to show a physical sign of that. Perhaps they mutate a little bit (natural weapon? AC bonus?).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6251558, member: 2067"] I would expect the warlock to remain a seperate class in 5e because legacy buzzword shenanigans. BUT I'm sympathetic here. It seems like the major difference is the TYPE of patron: a "god" vs. some other entity. That distinction can't help but be kind of arbitrary. And I like the vibe of a divine warlock. It creates a much better story for dark magic, a dichotomy between the "approved" gods and the "dark" gods that is rife with interesting distinction and variety. A warlock makes a much better evil priest than the cleric! I don't think it'd be a major problem to do that re-write, though. It works, it's just not always consistent with the expectations of the class. Lots of sorcerers have "accidentally burned up my family" as backstory (the minor tricks are for toddlers!). Clerics define their look by determining what deity they have emblazoned on their shield. Warlocks who don't know their patron don't know if it's fey or alien or what yet. By level 1, a character is usually assumed to be competent in their class (even if they're not focused). I think I'd go the other way with it: Cleric: At level 1, they are priests of their gods and wield divine magic. At level 3, they get initiated into deeper mysteries. Perhaps they can now bless items in the name of their gods! (Some kind of perhaps-temporary item creation?) Warlock: At level 1, they have a pact with their patron. At level 3, they ...get initiated into deeper mysteries. Perhaps they are given a gift from their patron (free magic item?) Sorcerer: At level 1, they have tapped into their bloodline. At level 3, they...maybe start to show a physical sign of that. Perhaps they mutate a little bit (natural weapon? AC bonus?). [/QUOTE]

Verification