Design & Development: The Warlock

[Simia Saturnalia]

He didn't specifically call anyone a "name". He said this forum was full of fanboys (which isn't exactly a dirty word, nor untrue). Then a few posts later, someone suggested he was foolish for posting in a forum dedicated to 4th ed and expecting NOT to find it overrun with 4th ed "fanboys". Which is it? Is this forum for new edition cheerleaders only, or can someone disagree and not get derided, insulted, or dare I say it, "pounced" upon?

I cannot speak to the behavior of individuals in the forum, but I dare to ask:
Where, other than the 4e forum, would you expect to find 4e fanboys?

 

[Stone Dog]

No worse than your speculation that Warlocks aren't an evil-aligned class.

This speculation at least has some grounding in the current rules.

Yeah, the warlock is looking to be pretty sinister so far. Kinda scary. They weren't forced to be evil in the last edition and since a 4e goal is to remove most of the mechanical effects of alignment it is rather fair to assume that they won't be forced in the next edition.

The warlock would be right at home on a Heavy Metal album or magazine cover, true. It talks big about fiends and bargains and pacts. Okay. Still, saying they are only good for villains or are intrinsically evil all the way is a lot more hardnosed than saying that there might well be other options for the class.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

The part I'm surprised that I've seen few comment on in this thread is how CLOSELY this resembles the World of Warcraft Warlock -- down to "marking a soul", to the summoning of mouths to bite enemies, etc. Hopefully, Blizzard won't sue. (edited because I missed the middle of Praxis' post.)

This doesn't sound like it'll be a class for me, not because of flavor (which I'm fine with), but the mechanics.

Wha...the 4e warlock has DoTs, drains mana and HP, and summons and binds demons for a variety of roles (tanking, dps, stag parties)? AWESOME!

Brad

 

[Wormwood]

"Your opinion doesn't count!"

Not what I said. Not what I meant.

Don't do that.

No worse than your speculation that Warlocks aren't an evil-aligned class. Judging by the article, they are evil all the way with a captial "E". They mentioned feral and shadow in passing and suddenly, with no evidence whatsoever, that makes them non-evil? Now who's reading into the article more than is actually there? By what is currently in the article, they are geared toward being evil. Handwaving semantics and arguing over the traditional meaning of "feral" notwithstanding.

Until I see "alignment: evil" in print, I'm going to assume that the design team was serious when they said that there would be less emphasis on alignment in 4e. Straitjacketing a class into one alignment doesn't jibe with their stated design goal.

He didn't specifically call anyone a "name". He said this forum was full of fanboys (which isn't exactly a dirty word, nor untrue). Then a few posts later, someone suggested he was foolish for posting in a forum dedicated to 4th ed and expecting NOT to find it overrun with 4th ed "fanboys". Which is it? Is this forum for new edition cheerleaders only, or can someone disagree and not get derided, insulted, or dare I say it, "pounced" upon?

[/QUOTE]
His use of 'fanboy' was dismissive and contemptuous. Similar to how 'grognard' is (unfortunately) used sometimes.

There are many posters on this forum who have serious problems with 4e. The ones who don't act like jerks are treated with respect (or so I should hope).

 

[Bishmon]

And again...that's part of the fun.

For you. I don't want to do it. I don't want to have to spend the time converting a class to be more flexible. That's time I could be using to do any number of other more creatively fulfilling things.

If you find that fun, great. But I don't. I'd rather be presented with a flexible class and spend the time detailing the cool flavor I want instead of having to pry unwanted flavor out of all the mechanics to get it looking like something I want. That's just my preference.

 

[Eridanis]

Two bans from this thread already today, and people continue to break the civility rule?

Anyone is welcome to post anywhere on these boards, as long as it is respectful (and hopefully constructive). Please don't tell someone who you disagree with to basically "get out of the forum," or use pejorative terms like "fanboy" just because someone disagrees with you.

More of this, and the thread will be closed and more bans handed out.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Judging by the article, they are evil all the way with a captial "E".

Patent assumption. They are never said to be evil, & there is at least one (possibly two) pact mentioned that has nothing inherently evil (much less Evil) about it.

They mentioned feral and shadow in passing and suddenly, with no evidence whatsoever, that makes them non-evil?

Um, I think the mention of feral & shadow actually qualifies as evidence at least as much as anything you're building your assumptions on. If they'd mentioned celestial in exactly the same way, would that still mean they're evil with a capital E? (& that rhymes with 'p' & that stands for pool... oops, wait, wrong crowd)

Now who's reading into the article more than is actually there? By what is currently in the article, they are geared toward being evil. Handwaving semantics and arguing over the traditional meaning of "feral" notwithstanding.[/

LOL, as opposed to ignoring what is written in favor of your own alarmism? Yes, never let the details stand in the way of a good assumption!

*sigh*

 

[Irda Ranger]

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

Lawful evil. You forgot the evil part. Devils are fairly insistent on that point.

And make no mistake, the flavor in the article was Evil. Capital 'E'. Selling your own soul to a dark being is "not good", and selling other people's souls / sending them to Hell is straight-up, do not pass Neutral or collect 200 gold pieces, Evil.

As it stands, we have three possible power sources: Infernal, Shadow and Feral. Infernal is clearly evil. The other two we can't say for sure yet, but we know that the Shadowfell is the realm of death, decay and undeath. That doesn't bode well for their 'goodly nature.' Feral is most likely CN, NN or alignment-agnostic.

I really, really hope that "Boone of Souls" is an infernal-only power. But I am not hopeful that the Shadow (undead/necromancer) Warlock won't be equally distasteful. That leaves the Feral Warlock / pseudo-druid as a playable PC. One in three.

That's not a good ratio. The 3e Cleric has plenty of non-evil alignments and deities to choose from. As far as I was concerned, the evil gods were there for my NPC-making needs. Not for PC consumption.

Without having seen the rules, I am still hopeful that you can play a good warlock. But the fact remains that it seems you will be playing "against type", and possibly at a mechanical disadvantage relative to your more ethically challenged peers. Much like a "good" Necromancer, who won't use half the spells his evil brethren do.

As it currently stands (and again, without having seen final rules), the Warlock seems like a waste of PHB space better spent on a Druid or Monk. He would be much better as an Iron Heroes' Villain Class.

If you haven't picked it up yet, no, I do not allow evil PC's in my campaigns. They're disruptive and make the game less fun for other PC's. I also don't find it fun to DM for an evil group. And yes, there is a real difference between good and evil, both in the real world and in D&D.

 

[Korgoth]

I'm interested in seeing where they go with this. The class, as written, sounds evil. The proposed patrons are one obviously evil, one that prorably is, and one that may be. "Shadow" is the probably: it seems like that's a reference to the Shadowfell, which is the land of the dead. Making pacts with the dead (or undead) sounds pretty evil.

"Feral" could be either evil or neutral. It's evil if it refers to the Abyss, evil elemental lords (like from the old FF) or dark fey. It's neutral if it just refers to the Great Bison Spirit or whatever. But the whole "marking souls" thing sounds like even a fey connection would still count as evil.

But I'm OK with a specifically evil class. Assassins have a fine D&D pedigree and that's an evil-only class. Makes sense. You have a class or two that are mostly for villains, with the occasional "sad boy" anti-hero or villain-protagonist PC.

I consider it too early to tell whether I like the class or not. It is intriguing. But almost certainly evil.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I am looking forward to playing a fire and brimstone LG warlock with infernal powers. Helping the innocent, defending the weak and punishing the wicked with a taste of the damnation that waits for them.

"Repent your wicked ways or the fires of hell await you!"
"I'll never repent! I'll destroy you all!" BAMFBAMF "OW OW OW OW!!!!"
"Told you!"

Isn't it nice the way that mechanics serve the fluff, and not the other way around?