Design & Development: The Warlock

[Li Shenron]

Feral warlocks could have a very natural tie-in to shapeshifters (which is arguably the defining class feature of druids).

Mmm... never thought of this.

I could see feral warlocks and druids being related, but not the first to take over (i.e. include) the second, because warlocks don't seem to have an attitude of bonding with nature in a sort-of caring way, which IMHO all druids have, but I rather see warlocks as bonding with something due to a utilisticary (sp?) approach. I mean, more like "I bond with nature to plunder its power" than "I bond with nature because nature is good".

Also, I really really think that shapeshifting should become an option for druids, and stop being the defining class feature, because IMHO the druid is too vast a concept to enforce shapeshifting on all of them (there's the natural healer, the treehugger, the animals friend, the wielder of elemental forces, the weather controller...).

Shapeshifting could be the ground where warlocks and druids either meet... or clash. I'm thinking something vaguely similar to good vs evil lycanthropes for instance.

 

[Cadfan]

Or perhaps he's a DM not looking forward to telling his players that they will not be able to play warlocks because he wants to run a heroic campaign, and he just doesn't see such a dark class as working with his campaign.
I'm not against having such a class, and I certainly understand that I don't have to have warlocks in my campaigns any more than I need LG paladins. But I can empathize with folks that don't like the change, not because that class is "not for them" but because it's something of a fundamental change in the game as a whole. It's a darker D&D, and like it or not it's going to affect a lot of campaigns, because good DM's hate to restrict player choices, and don't have time to rework the warlock to be less "evil-ish".

As far as reworking warlocks to be "less dark" I personally wouldn't think of it. It would be like reworking the fighter to be less "warrior-ish". I want my warlocks to be damned souls terrified of death and the judgement they are going to face for the powers they've dared to tap.

So I like the class and would use it IMC, but that's me.

I disagree, particularly with the part highlighted. Necromancers were in the PHB in 3e. They were one amongst several types of wizards. Evil clerics were in the PHB, just dropped in like a normal, every day thing.

The rules have for years encompassed despoiling corpses for personal gain, and worshipping a literal god of evil. DMs figured out how to handle this then, and I'm sure they'll figure out how to handle the warlock now.

We just don't think about that because we're used to it. But when you really consider it, a spellcaster who makes a pact with a something "infernal" is arguably better than a cleric who worships Evil directly. Fantasy literature has plenty of good, or at least non evil, characters who consort with bad things to obtain magical powers. Imp familiars and demon summoning are common tropes. But I can't think of very many good-guy fantasy characters who dig up graves and create shambling horrors of their inhabitants, nor can I think of any actual worshippers of evil that were good guys deep down.

 

[sidonunspa]

I just don't like the boon of souls bit...

If it’s a mechanic it limits what I can do with the class flavor (because they need to kill people to power abilities… that’s kind of evil, no?) also it seems they send the souls to their patron. I have a feeling that warlocks may be limited to “evil villain status” in the Arcanis setting. And hell, if I was playing a paladin (good alignment) I would be horrified by the “marking of souls” bit.

The rest of it sounds cool… I think they just gave me the perfect villain class. I just don't see it as heroic.

 

[GreatLemur]

Hm. Now I'm wondering about the whole issue of power sources. Is the Warlock an arcane class, even though his powers might come from the Nine Hells, the Shadowfell, or the Feywild? I had been so sure that we'd see shadow/death and fey/nature as distinct power sources in coming PHBs...

 

[Cadfan]

Hm. Now I'm wondering about the whole issue of power sources. Is the Warlock an arcane class, even though his powers might come from the Nine Hells, the Shadowfell, or the Feywild? I had been so sure that we'd see shadow/death and fey/nature as distinct power sources in coming PHBs...

I'm not sure that the arcane, divine, etc classifications are mechanical classifications. I suspect they're flavor classifications. Which means that the warlock is arcane if they say its arcane and we believe them.

 

[Rechan]

Curses, Conjurations and Movement powers.

Does anyone think the Warlock has to choose which to focus on, early on? Like the wizard chooses his implements? I'm wondering how a Movement-based Warlock could, well, kick badguy ass.

Also, I'm curious what the "Acid Bog" power mentioned in one of the playtests qualifies as. Would that be under "Conjurations"?

And I distinctly recall the Demon/Devil article mentioning that Demons aren't interested in souls. So I'm just not thinking that Demons are involved here. Devils, yes.

 

[hopeless]

Oh yes?

That's a pretty shallow, whiny complaint you have there.

Actually that would be where you are very wrong.

At least the message you were replying to was being polite I on the other hand couldn't mke a better reply to thsi thread without going into detail exactly how wrong it is without being accused of being a relgious extremist.
Its just that the warlock as described will never be anything other than the villain of the piece as described and they really should have worded it better or better yet actually made this release be about something worth reading... like warlords for example or anything other than this well I guess I proved myself right looking at how long this message is going.
Well enough said lets see what veryone else said.

 

[Bishmon]

Perhaps the warlock class isn't for you, then? I don't mean to sound exclusionary, but this is just making me think of someone who likes playing honorable chivalrous characters complaining about the rogue class not having enough flavor options, or something.

Thing is, the warlock class is exactly for me. I loved the idea behind the mechanics when the class first came out. An arcane magic user who has access to a few select abilities but can use them all the time? It was everything I thought the sorcerer should have been.

It was just so unfortunate that it was such a pain in the ass to pry the flavor out of the mechanics. I wouldn't have much cared if the whole infernal power thing was just in the flavor text, the same way sorcerers connections to dragons are in its flavor text. But while I can ignore that sorcerer flavor text and easily make a sorcerer who had more fey-like powers, or one who just liked blasting things, or whatever else, I couldn't really do that with the warlock. Not when half its powers are about summoning swarms of bats, growing bat-like wings, turning into a hellcat, etc.

With 4E, I was hoping they'd give the class a bit more flexibility, but this article doesn't leave me optimistic. It'd be a small victory if one of the options for the 4E warlock was more of a connection with fey, but I still would have liked to have seen flexibility akin to that of sorcerers, wizards, and clerics because of how much I liked the idea behind the mechanics.

Oh well. Hopefully the 4E sorcerer will be more of what I'm hoping for.

 

[SCMrks]

I don't mind the dark/evil options for those who want to play them and to be used as interesting bad guys but I have a concern about how this will affect the growth of the game. I think D&D 4th Ed will be on the news just like the protests against Harry Potter and video games that promote killing cops and committing crimes made the news. And when it is mentioned that D&D promotes being a half demon race that makes pacts with demons to gain powers many parents will not let their kids check out the game.

And if there is a tragedy in which a kid commits suicide or commits a school shooting and a Player's Handbook is found in the kids bedroom, the tragedy will be depicted as D&D's fault. I'm not saying the claim would be true but how the media would say it to make a story.

And just like people sue gun makers because of a shooting or sue McDonalds because fast food made them fat, I see lawsuits coming against WotC because D&D made their kid suicidal.

I think the tiefling and warlock would have been better in another options book instead of in the basic PHB that everyone needs to buy to begin playing the game.

 

[Rechan]

It was just so unfortunate that it was such a pain in the ass to pry the flavor out of the mechanics. I wouldn't have much cared if the whole infernal power thing was just in the flavor text, the same way sorcerers connections to dragons are in its flavor text. But while I can ignore that sorcerer flavor text and easily make a sorcerer who had more fey-like powers, or one who just liked blasting things, or whatever else, I couldn't really do that with the warlock. Not when half its powers are about summoning swarms of bats, growing bat-like wings, turning into a hellcat, etc.

Because it's impossible to say "You summon a swarm of spear-wielding pixies" while using the bat swarm stats, or "The bat wings are actually fairie wings". It's like saying Magic Missile is limiting because the flavor text says rays of magical energy. Every mage player I've ever known has tailored their MM thematically to the caster. So exactly how can't you do that with the Warlock?

Keep the mechanics of the invocation, and change the flavor of the invocation's appearance.