Design & Development: The Warlock

[grimslade]

I think I will join Paraxis in leaving the debate. ;P

I like the concept of the Warlock. Pact magic interests me and is a persistent trope in Fantasy. I like that there will be different varieties of Warlock (Infernal, Feral, Shadow) I even like the send your foe to hell for a round. Seems Dickensian to me.

I do not like the Rich Baker quote of (paraphrased) "How dark can we make the warlock in fluff". I think the example article leans to heavily on dark powers and ominous language. This limits the possibilities of the class with the information we have now.

In response to ideas in various posts,
A pact with a powerful outsider does not make you evil. Not everyone follows the paladin's code and falls from grace for stumbling once. The devils job is to make the warlock fall, but the fall is not binary, there is a descent. Using some of the powers may cause the descent to hasten, Boon of Souls comes to mind.
The whole alignment axis argument is most likely moot. Alignment will be altered for 4E. There may be an objective way to rank a slide to evil or redemption to good.

 

[hopeless]

Okay

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

Good to hear from you anyway.

 

[hopeless]

Okay...

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.

That was the case but depending on the dm it needn't be

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

So you consider all classes exactly in the same boat with the warlock even though that class apparently HAS TO KILL OR SACRIFICE SOMEONE TO RETAIN OR ADVANCE THEIR ABILITIES?

I'd like that clarified if you don't mind.

Has there been any update as to whether the three warlock options are evil or not?

That is the gist of this thread isn't it?

The fact they've gone for an option that should have been stuck right next to the assassin in the dmg...

By the way, most of those times they're killing something its usually because they're being attacked however I agree there are times when they could have avoided killing something and still earned that xp but the warlock doesn't have that option according to the way they seem to work, be my guest and correct me on that point won't you?

I'm not the warlock expert and never will be, but it would be nice to have all the facts however maybe thats what the preview books will provide.

 

[hopeless]

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.
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.

Okay if you're ignoring me then you will surely not mind me asking which four since the James Bond I've watched tend to show he does actually care even if the missions he's on tend to short circuit the relationships and I assumed you meant Casino Royale.
However you're right that doesn't matter and as for the insulting bit I was actually thanking you for that bit as it wasn't something I'd even considered but as you've said it really doesn't matter but thanks for that last bit and I'll return the favour from this point on.

 

[hopeless]

A question

Let me try to explain my thoughts better, killing can be done for a good cause. IMHO.
Execution of convictied murderers, war fought against forces of evil, self defense, ect....

A fighter is a professional killer it's what the class is all about, but who he kills, why he kills, and even how he kills makes a huge difference. A soldier who is a sniper compared to a professional hitman are completly different people or characters.

The flavor of the Warlock suggests heavly to me that, his/her motivation for killing is to gain more power from the being the warlock made a pact with, in the case of atleast 1/3rd of them maybe more of these beings are all infernal powers of pure evil. Shadow and Feral again to me don't sound much better.

I am still a 4E fanboy, and hope to have many enjoyable games with the system but I am unhappy about this class, and it's a major issue with me because a good section of the PHB will go to warlock powers just like to cleric and wizard spells, and it seems that the inclussion of the warlock pushed a more well rounded class out of the PHB. IMHO the warlock belongs in the DMG or a splat book, maybe even PHB2 where planar power sources could be touched on.

Sorry but would you say the film "The Covenant" highlights warlocks in a manner that best describes their abilities and restrictions?
Its just that I can't help wondering if perhaps a better description of them is in order and more importantly their reasoning for this choice.

 

[hopeless]

Just a question

Why? If the warlock isn't evil or doing evil why is he as bad as a mass murderer? Who said he sold his soul anyway? What if the pact was "I'll give you all this power if you tithe 10% of your loot to the temple of Asmodeus." No souls involved. I suppose you could argue that the Warlock is sponsoring evil acts, but frankly unless you abstain from use of the internal combustion engine I could probably make the argument about you.

A person who makes a pact with evil, sacrificing himself to achieve good ends, is a common trope in fantasy. For that matter so is someone who makes a deal and then strives against his fate (and fails.) What's wrong with D&D supporting these stories out the gate? If you don't want it at your table then veto Infernal Pact warlocks, that still leaves Shadow and Fey Warlocks.

There have been plenty examples of shall we say Lawful stupidness, what the previous message was talking about is that by all rights this character should be showing up on the paladin's detect evil sense regardless of whether they're evil or not, personally I hope they alter that particulr ability so they can sense the presence of enemies of their faith and thereby short circuit this problem however it will still NOT explain the problem of having someone who has sworn an oath to say Orcus even if forced unless they have already stated they are accompanying said paladin in a quest for redemption and need their help to stay on the side of light.
A bit much perhaps but until we learn what changes they're making to the alignment rules if they're any this is a bit of a stickler.

 

[The Little Raven]

I am still a 4E fanboy, and hope to have many enjoyable games with the system but I am unhappy about this class, and it's a major issue with me because a good section of the PHB will go to warlock powers just like to cleric and wizard spells, and it seems that the inclussion of the warlock pushed a more well rounded class out of the PHB.

The sorcerer was just a poor wizard clone to make up for the fact that wizard spells consumed 1/3 of the PHB alone. That's not a well rounded class.

 

[see]

Yeah, that ends it for me. There's a name for a character that marks and murders people to gain power from inhuman masters, and it's "non-player".

Well, I was going to leave that as my last statement on the EN World 4e board, but I've changed my mind. This explanation will be it instead:

In warfare, your goal is to defeat the enemy. Yes, you're willing to kill the foe to achieve that end; but incapacitating the foe, inducing him to surrender, or routing him into headlong retreat are all victories, too. In a D&D encounter, all of those get rewarded with XP for defeating the challenge.

In the Boon of Souls, if the opponent doesn't die, he presumably doesn't qualify as having gone to his afterlife reward. So we have a mechanic here that involves a direct reward to a PC for cutting the throat of a foe who has surrendered.

I would term as "evil" any supernatural entity that sets up a standing temptation for people to commit murder. Which means a warlock who uses the Boon of Souls is a character who kills to gain the gratitude (Rob Heinsoo's word, not mine) of a supernatural evil. (I recognize that others may differ with my definition. That's fine. You're not going to convince me.)

Now, if it were going in the DMG, I'd be fine with it; it would make an excellent villain. But it's being presented as one of the eight PC classes, meaning in place of something (in my opinion) more appropriate for a player character. So my conclusion from this is that they're taking D&D in a direction I'm not interested in, and certainly not interested in spending my money on.

Maybe it'll be a wild success; my tastes haven't noticeably been a predictor of commercial success. But it'll be a success without me. See you when Fifth Edition is announced.

 

[Baby Samurai]

The sorcerer was just a poor wizard clone to make up for the fact that wizard spells consumed 1/3 of the PHB alone. That's not a well rounded class.

They have confirmed that the sorcerer will make an appearance in 4th Ed, but will be markedly different than the wizard (thank god).

…Perhaps Nature Controller?

 

[The Little Raven]

Now, if it were going in the DMG, I'd be fine with it; it would make an excellent villain. But it's being presented as one of the eight PC classes, meaning in place of something (in my opinion) more appropriate for a player character. So my conclusion from this is that they're taking D&D in a direction I'm not interested in, and certainly not interested in spending my money on.

Evil characters have been presented as playable since 1e. Assassin and drow in UA.

I think that "they're taking D&D in that direction" boat sailed a long time ago.