Design & Development: The Warlock

[HeinorNY]

Boon of Souls = Shoulshard?

 

[hopeless]

Hmm...

You misunderstood. I don't want to spend my time adding (or subtracting and then adding) flavor to the mechanics. I want to spend my time adding flavor to the character.

I want the warlock to be like the wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. I want to imagine a character, pick the spells/powers that fit my idea for that character, and then build a story on that. I don't want to imagine a character and then have to completely change the class by either renaming, reworking, or outright getting rid of some of its abilities.

All that matters to me is the 3E warlock was one of the least fun classes for me to create a character in because of its inherent lack of flexibility. Granted, as has been pointed out repeatedly, I was certainly capable of overcoming that lack of flexibility, but that sure didn't do anything to make creating a warlock any more fun for me. I'd just like to see a more flexible approach to the 4E warlock.

In short this would work fine IF it had been a prestige class however it evidently isn't so you're having obvious trouble devising a way for it to fit.
Perfectly understandable the warlock should have been a prestige class in 3.5, there were far better choices than it for that class role like the wild mage for example that was an optional class in 2e became a prestige class in 3.0+ and yet deserves better but it was never a case of should it have been it was more of a case "Hey this cool lets make it a core class" instead of "with these mechanics its better served as a prestige class, say lets correct the mistake made on the sorceror and fuse the favoured sould bck together with it so it can cast a limited no of spells but can choose from arcane and divine..." as it should hav in the first place!

Sorry wandering off the thread however aptly perhaps you can reply with what character type you fancy and see if we can't help you resolve the problems inherent.
At least we might get to see a proper background instead of a core class that involves the character having bound themselves to some extraplanar deity or force of malevolent nature given how its described.

 

[hopeless]

Paladins any alignment...

Only they're warlocking the paladin, not paladinning the warlock. The paladin's alignment restrictions have been lifted, allowing him to be something other than LG. The warlock was never restricted to CE. He could be good or evil, lawful or chaotic, just not every combination of the two.

Not warlockin' merely treating the paladin PROPERLY.
When I ran a Kalamar game I made sure to have the Paladin of the Knight of the Gods ran into a Paladin of the Rot Lord, thats right not a black guard but an actual Paldin of another deity, why?
Because they're followers of opposing religions, one good, one evil, no paladin fell into evil rubbish but an actual evil paladin fighting a good aligned paladin something that has ALWAYS struck me as the proper way to deal with this class.
Warlocks as they've described them sounds like the leaders of sects of cultists and the main enemy your pcs must face until the Monster Manual and then the DMG is released unless that shadowfell adventure can cope in the mean time or the insider net magazines which don't strike me as that good.
But on that issue I'm hoping they'll surprise me, on your issue I don't care for warlocks never have but I despise favoured souls FAR more and have to admit I do agree with some of the issue raised here that unless they correct what they've described so far the warlock is 100% evil whether Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic... but still evil, shame really I actually would like to see that druidic version and it sounds like shifters might be appropriate to me.
Now I wonder what that mystery class is?
It better not be FAVOURED SOULS or there will be trouble...

 

[hopeless]

Fighters & Warlocks

A fighter gets levels from killing people.

But they don't HAVE to kill people to get xp, they get xp for adventures and some times they can get past creatures wihout killing them.
This states the warlock MUST kill someone to retain their abilities and even hope to increase them whilst fighters would have to multi-class to get anything like those abilities and even then only the evil aligned ones would consider this pact worth their time.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Now I wonder what that mystery class is?
It better not be FAVOURED SOULS or there will be trouble...

My guess? Druid.

It's the one of only two classes to feature in all editions of the AD&D lineage of the game that we haven't had confirmed or near-confirmed, and if some of the hints about character creation and multiclassing are correct, you might be able to build a good default Bard by taking a rogue, selecting the right talents, and adding some wizard spellcasting--or druid spellcasting for those who want a more 1E/Celtic style bard. The Druid, though, is very much its own creature, and folding into the Cleric would require a much broader concept of the Cleric than seems likely for 4E (a disappointment to me, but what can you do?).

Yes, I know we were told that there are only 8 classes in the PH--but IIRC, that was before the book gained 32 pages.

 

[hopeless]

Clerics & Warlocks

Killing people is precisely what gives them special abilities. Why does the cleric get 2nd level spells? He killed enough goblins.

Again with the faulty outlook, read the article again then look at wht the existing classes can do currently.
Only the warlock HAS to kill people to retain their abilities unless the designers turn around and say the cleric of the god of murder MUST perform a ritual sacrifice every full moon to retain the blessing of the god then you are absolutely and utterly WRONG.
I do take it you can understand my thinking because you aren't.
Please reply to this message and for once try and make yourself clear instead of this rubbish you seem to be repeating.
Sorry to everyone else but first fighters and now this!
Enough is enough.

 

[hopeless]

Okay... I think

He said DARK themes are dramatic and interesting. You then replied about EVIL themes.

I'm beginning to see the disconnect here.

I see your point however this is the difference between roleplaying and powergaming, the powergamer seeks to increase their power so uses the excuse of increasing their level as a warlock to say they're trying to fight their sponsor and seek redemption, the roleplayer however would say they're powers are increasing because their sponsor is trying to corrupt them so they would have to give up on their mission to redeem themselves.
The problem ultimately is with the player and the dm, either you're playing an evil pc campaign or you're not and if you're not unless you're capable of running this properly DON'T BOTHER.

Thats MY point.

Now as for the celestial side, well I've read a players background for the warlock of the Silver Flame and had I dmed the game I would have said absolutely not even if it was well written because I don't see warlocks as a legitimate core class thats MY problem.

Its not everyone elses, thats the reall point of this short paragraph however, whether we care about it or not its ultimately the player who wants to run it has to get the permission of the dm whose running the game to let him/her play the character and thats that.

I can't see them putting a monster selection at the back of the phb, not with this latest info and that overpriced shadowfell module they're releasing the previous month so I suspect cultists and whatever monster stats those who buy 4e can get from the insider releases will have to do.

And that is plain wrong but this isn't the place to discuss THAT.

Otherwise well we'll just have to see won't we?

 

[Kesh]

I see your point however this is the difference between roleplaying and powergaming, the powergamer seeks to increase their power so uses the excuse of increasing their level as a warlock to say they're trying to fight their sponsor and seek redemption, the roleplayer however would say they're powers are increasing because their sponsor is trying to corrupt them so they would have to give up on their mission to redeem themselves.
The problem ultimately is with the player and the dm, either you're playing an evil pc campaign or you're not and if you're not unless you're capable of running this properly DON'T BOTHER.

Thats MY point.

Your point is patently false. Both examples you gave are roleplaying, you just apparently don't like the motivation behind one of the character's actions.

Now as for the celestial side, well I've read a players background for the warlock of the Silver Flame and had I dmed the game I would have said absolutely not even if it was well written because I don't see warlocks as a legitimate core class thats MY problem.

Right. That's fine. It's just that you seem to keep saying that no one else can play the warlock that way, so it shouldn't be in the core rules at all.

 

[hopeless]

Er... hello?

Assume it's the rhetorical "you" and stop defending people who are, in fact, calling people names.
Sure, one could play that way. It's not the way that 90% of games are played, but it's entirely possible. Given that the vast majority of games are "go somewhere, kill something, get loot and XP," I hardly think you're justified in calling my characterization 100% wrong.
No, that would be genre mixing.

I can't speak to Jack Bauer, since I've never watched whatever he's in, but James Bond is a stone-cold killer. He never gave a rat's butt whether what he did was for the greater good. He just enjoyed being a super-spy. It got him action, girls, and martinis, and he really had no other goals in life. He's the good guy because he's instructed to be by his handlers, to which he is loyal. He's actually a pretty fantastic example of how to set up a character of questionable morals to operate in a game-friendly way.
Go back and read the flavour text of the 3.5 warlock. Some of them are suggested to be what you might call "pact scions." In other words, they inherited the family business through no fault of their own.
And this makes a bad concept for an infernal warlock because...

First off try watching some James Bond movies, I'm assuming from your message you have missed some important points about the series but I'm not going to waste my time explaining why you're wrong on that subject.

Nice idea about warlocks being a family business though BUT the reason Spawn makes a good example of a warlock seeking redemption is the story behind it something you're apparently ignorant of.

Not your fault I'm don't collect Spawn comics and only watched a limited no of episodes so I can understand that fault, however what they've been discussing here is that there are three types of warlocks and the description for them seems to indicate that they're all evil and the general gist of what I've read is why?
Should they have openly stated this is an evil only class and what changes have they introduced to 4e that will resolve this because it will have to be major because if they've thrown out alignments and not put a suitable replacement into its place I can tell you if I buy 4e I will be enforcing the old rules because I'm not going to run a remake of the World of Darkness no matter what they say otherwise.

 

[hopeless]

Interesting

Something else to consider.

Dragon Magic presented pacts with Dragons in it.

Maybe the "Feral" pact = Pact with Dragons?

Nice point however its sounds more like Feral = Nature or Fey