Design & Development: The Warlock

[grimslade]

The warlock deserves to be a core class. It is a well established trope for fantasy and is well established in literature. The first thing I thought of was Sheelba and Ningauble in the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser stories. Patrons who helped the duo but required a price.

The flavor elements that have been released for the warlock have been th darkest end of the spectrum. I would have preferred a more general tone for the article, if only to stem the endless alignment debate. The warlock is a class that can emulate your Spawns, Ghostriders and other Faustian anti-heroes railing against the pact that binds them. The class can also be a model for a totemic shaman who calls on the spirit of the Great Bear for strength to vanquish his enemies or the mage who calls on the sprit of a long dead wizard to help him survive his wizard trials leaving him forever changed.

Hopefully, as more information appears the warlock will be a much more flexible iconic character.

 

[hopeless]

Nice to hear from you

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.

No what I stated was two variations that you misconstrued to be the same.
A common fallacy is associating powergaming with roleplaying, they aren't the same thing.
What I mentioned was one person selecting a warlock purely for the abilities it possessed and trying very poorly to explain why they want to continue in that class, the second was an attempt to explain why they were continuing and in such a way to make it a legitimate reason, and by that I mean one was being very obvious the other was actually trying to explain "why" they were continuing as a warlock something this thread hasn't bothered to look at except for that example of Spawn.

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.

I simply pointed out my view, its not ingrained in stone, I just CANNOT see this class as core and would require at the very least it to be the result of multiclassing and not a starting class since I would rather there be an option for them to say this level I go up as this because I'm trying to resist the curse of the warlock not I'm increasing my level without roleplaying the consequences which is my point with this class THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES so I really would like to see examples of what people think of as good reasons for warlock characters you know for example Full Metal Alchemist gave a pretty good background for one and thats what I'm not seeing here.

Warlock is thought apparently as "cool", its not its a 4e character class and I would like an explanation for WHY it and not some other class that deserves that slot.

I agree a sorceror can fulfil that role better, but I'm still thinking its an npc class for villains so when the phb comes out there's a suitable nemesis for the party to fight against.

And for me thats fine, but I'd like them to be perfectly clear on this class and from what I've seen and heard so far its not.

Until they explain what they've replaced the alignments with I can only assume they're doing this because if there were alignments they would be right royally stuffed and that just stinks since I've read ideas in this thread which look reasonable to me and I don't like Warlocks!

That doesn't mean I won't allow a player to try and change my mind, I just prefer them to surprise me and not disappoint which is what this release about the warlock has been doing.

 

[Counterspin]

I don't see any problem with non-evil infernal warlocks, and warlocks would easily fit into any of my games as PCs. As long as the mechanics are solid, I see nothing to complain about.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No what I stated was two variations that you misconstrued to be the same.
A common fallacy is associating powergaming with roleplaying, they aren't the same thing.
What I mentioned was one person selecting a warlock purely for the abilities it possessed and trying very poorly to explain why they want to continue in that class, the second was an attempt to explain why they were continuing and in such a way to make it a legitimate reason, and by that I mean one was being very obvious the other was actually trying to explain "why" they were continuing as a warlock something this thread hasn't bothered to look at except for that example of Spawn.



I simply pointed out my view, its not ingrained in stone, I just CANNOT see this class as core and would require at the very least it to be the result of multiclassing and not a starting class since I would rather there be an option for them to say this level I go up as this because I'm trying to resist the curse of the warlock not I'm increasing my level without roleplaying the consequences which is my point with this class THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES so I really would like to see examples of what people think of as good reasons for warlock characters you know for example Full Metal Alchemist gave a pretty good background for one and thats what I'm not seeing here.

Warlock is thought apparently as "cool", its not its a 4e character class and I would like an explanation for WHY it and not some other class that deserves that slot.

I agree a sorceror can fulfil that role better, but I'm still thinking its an npc class for villains so when the phb comes out there's a suitable nemesis for the party to fight against.

And for me thats fine, but I'd like them to be perfectly clear on this class and from what I've seen and heard so far its not.

Until they explain what they've replaced the alignments with I can only assume they're doing this because if there were alignments they would be right royally stuffed and that just stinks since I've read ideas in this thread which look reasonable to me and I don't like Warlocks!

That doesn't mean I won't allow a player to try and change my mind, I just prefer them to surprise me and not disappoint which is what this release about the warlock has been doing.

Hmm. I doubt that's how the Warlock would work, but it might be cool that, as he grows in levels, his powers become less and less dependent on his patrons, as he manages to shake off their influence on him (but keeping the good parts )

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is not true, but I think you know that already.

Ignoring for the time being the fact that characters can advance in levels without killing,

Sorry, as someone pointed out, killing is only the primary way that characters advance, not the only way. I don't know how I could have overlooked such a critical point.

a cleric who does kill monsters and such does not receive special powers as a direct consequence of such killing. That is, he doesn't kill a goblin and suddenly receive a second-level spell slot

Depends on exactly how many XP he had when he killed the goblin.

For a recent campaign I played a paladin of Murlynd who didn't kill unless it was absolutely unavoidable. He instead used traps and subdual weapons and attacks. He was something of a bounty hunter for his church. He advanced just fine in levels.

I have to wonder if this wasn't because he was part of an adventuring party that was, in fact, killing things, and he was sharing XP with them, as is the standard.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But they don't HAVE to kill people to get xp,

But they kill people to get XP.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Please reply to this message and for once try and make yourself clear instead of this rubbish you seem to be repeating.

Nope, no way am I ever going to reply to that message.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

I wonder if I should add a line to my sig where I enumerate the times I see someone post "I have a really great argument, but I'm not going to bother to post it, nor am I going to listen to anything you have to say on the subject. You'll just have to wallow in the knowledge that I'm right and you're wrong."

I think I'd have four over the last week alone.

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.

Dude, can you get any more insulting? You have done nothing but run me down in the last few posts you've made, while making sure you interrupt yourself to point out how much you know about all these subjects I'm soo ignorant about.

Now quit it. I don't agree with you, you haven't given me any reason to even read your posts, and I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[Twowolves]

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.

I'm going to ignore the fact that your "90% of games" stat is pure fabrication on your part and say that I believe you full well know the difference between advancing in a class, any class, through the accumulation of xp is different from using those earned xp to advance in a class that, as presented, gains class abilities through pacts with infernal entities.

And this makes a bad concept for an infernal warlock because...

Read my post again. I stated that Spawn was the one and only character from a list of almost a dozen that actually did make a good example. But I think you knew that.

 

[Wolfspider]

*raises eybrow*

OK then....

*backs away slowly, and then flees*