Design & Development: The Warlock

[Cadfan]

Nope, but those were options of classes. A player could still play the class in a non-evil function. This is completely different and I have no desire to get in some stupid semantical argument with you as you try to "prove me wrong."

The warlock is a bad class for the core PHB. Maybe it will sell more books as people have to collect the core classes that they love; however, I was used to buying all the books anyway. Maybe I will consider upgrading to 4e down the road when they give me options for bard and druid. However, the warlock news will keep me from upgrading to 4e in May. I will continue to play 3.5 and just begin redesigning the parts that I do not like from that system. There are some aspects of 4e that I really enjoy, but enough bad parts to have pushed me away.

There are 3 choices. "Infernal," "feral," and "shadowy."

Infernal is the best case for arguing that its evil. Spellcasters who consort with demons but who aren't evil are not uncommon in fantasy, but the norm is for them to be evil, so fine.

Feral has never meant evil in D&D. Its most typical meaning in terms of alignment is "true neutral," as it usually refers to forces of pure nature.

"Shadowy" is new. It probably means the Shadowfell. This might be undead themed, or it might be themed more like the Shadowcaster, which was another class with no particular alignment connotation.

So of 3 choices, we've got one that's traditionally evil, one that's traditionally neutral, and one that's unknown.

I don't think it's THAT bad.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Favourite bit: " an arsenal of curses (send enemy directly to hell for a round, then bring them back in more pieces)".

That sounds fun.

Best spell in Planescape: Torment.

Tore open a small portal to the ... Abyss, I think ... which sucked a single target through. The spell animation involved lots of slashing, stabbing, and screaming noises. On a failed save, he came back in tiny, tiny pieces (dead). On a successful save, he came back with a lot of damage.

It was much better than the good-aligned version (which just summoned a bunch of celestials).

In other words, I'm for it.

 

[Stone Dog]

Right, & thus completely different from the option for a warlock to play an evil infernal-pact or a NOT evil feral-pact.

Or a non-evil infernal pact. You may well be able to do that too. Isn't there a TV show on right now where a guy's parents sold him out to Satan at birth for riches? On his 21st birthday Satan shows up and starts putting him to work. Something like that might apply. Or just thinking they had no choice in the matter like Ghost Rider. Not every infernal warlock has to be Elric.

 

[Lackhand]

Also (maybe this is threadcrap? Where _should_ I be posting about wanting the druid? ), I actually don't want the druid in the core PHB. Shocking, perhaps.

But I want characters that can fill the druid's niche in the party very badly. I want the druid to have a separate power source than the cleric: if they use the same one, then I'd rather just have the druid be a kind of cleric (and that would have been okay, too).

But this way, we can break out the Shapeshifter (Nature Defender?), Shaman (Nature Leader?), and nature-wizard (Nature Controller?) roles that the druid currently fills. I actually quite like that; make each one able to do its schtick well, and everyone benefits. Appropriate spells, appropriate monsters, appropriate items, and a ton of thought given to them, specifically.

These are not just separate roles, they're entirely different archetypes and they show up disassociated in The Literature all the time.

I guess I'm just saying it'd be hard for them to fit the 3.5 druid into 4.0, especially in one book. And if they changed it to fit, I know that there would still be complaints, so I'm glad they're taking the time to do it right.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I have no desire to get in some stupid semantical argument with you as you try to "prove me wrong."

Man, I should append this to all of my posts. It would save me a lot of tedious "not being right all the time."

 

[Wormwood]

So of 3 choices, we've got one that's traditionally evil, one that's traditionally neutral, and one that's unknown.

Alternatively, you have three choices: one that's traditionally lawful, one essentially neutral, and one that appears fairly chaotic.

 

[Warbringer]

Hmmm... what happened to draconic heritage? Think that this is saved for the sorcerer?

By the way, brillinat insight on the feral --> druid... Like Planesailing said, wish I'd had the foresight to comment on that

 

[Belen]

Just like they can with a 4e warlock.

That's not the flavor option they gave in their article to get people interested in Warlocks. I do find it funny that people feel the need to argue with my choice regarding the news and my opinion on the matter. Why the hell does it matter to you if I am not upgrading to 4e?

There are way too many fanboys around here these days.

 

[Paraxis]

And what class would tieflings naturally gravitate to? A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons?

Uhm, tieflings are spawn of infernal creatures so = EVIL tone

Making pacts with infernal patrons = EVIL tone

I'm leaving the specific pacts out of this, but I will say that the pacts provide direct benefits when you send an enemy you've marked to their afterlife reward; your patrons show their gratitude by giving you a Boon of Souls.

Sending an enemy you've marked to their afterlife reward = Killing ie EVIL tone

Your patron shows their gratitude by giving you a Boon of Souls = Killing for sake of killing ie EVIL (Also this is the first thing that screams taken straight from World of Warcraft to me and I was a big supporter of how 4E was not video gamey, soul shards anyone)

send enemy directly to hell for a round, then bring them back in more pieces

This is the most evil thing so far, sending someone to the lower planes doesn't sound like anything a non-evil being would do. Note it doesn't say send to Feywild or Shadowfell if you've made pacts with those forces, nope you send the to Hell.

So sure maybe they don't have any alignment restrictions at all but all the fluff is EVIL.

You could say that a paladin can be any alignment but if you don't change the fluff and effect of his powers he is still a force for GOOD. Same goes here.

Ohh and if they summon pets then the whole 4E=WOW debate is closed and the side I want to win has lost...so please please WoTC don't let warlocks summon infernal creatures.

 

[Sigdel]

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

The Acid Bog thing is nothing new to the warlock in 4e. It was a new invocation for the calss in the book Complete Mage and it was called Caustic Mire. Its on page 123 and the description of the power is on 98.