Design & Development: The Warlock

[pemerton]

As a DM you could say that a warlock has no choice but to take further levels of warlock because of the pact he made, but then that takes away player choice wich is something 3E and apparently 4E try to never ever do.

Right. But the player can say that the PC has no choice, and then the player is not de-protagonised at all.

 

[Exen Trik]

Um, what are you people talking about? A warlock that takes levels in something else isn't breaking a pact or anything or leaving it behind or anything, they just aren't getting better at their warlockery.

As far as debate over the effect of evil pacts, as long as the character is non-good I don't see much of a problem. Sure a warlock with a fiendish pact might be an angel slaying, baby eating, willing tool of sinister forces, or he might simply be charged with taking out the fiendish competition.

I also don't see a problem with celestial pacts, especially in the manner of self-righteous overzealous archons of butt-whoopery. Paladin's in 3e are played like that fairly often anyways, being fond of slaying evil but not so much being lawful or honorable. A class that can claim that shtick by default seems like a great idea to me.

But here's the thing that gets my goat: why is the warlock considered arcane anyways? It seems pacts with outsiders, while certainly not at the level of dealing with gods, is much more a divine sort of power source. Not that power source is likely to be a big a big deal anyways, but I'd like it more consistent.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not metagame thinking at all.

People use training rules, people talk about how you get feats from practicing in down time, or if you don't use training then when you level in a new class how you have been dabbling in that field for awhile now.

Some people do use training rules. I never did. And we usually also try to minimize using gamist terms in-character. (Spells and monster names are fine, but feats?)

You have to want to be a better fighter in the game in order for taking more levels in the class to make sense, you must pray and be faithful to gain higher understanding as a cleric, if you want as a warlock to not go futher down the dark path you just don't.

As a DM you could say that a warlock has no choice but to take further levels of warlock because of the pact he made, but then that takes away player choice wich is something 3E and apparently 4E try to never ever do. The game has become about choices, not railroading PC's down a career path.

So this whole tragic character concept is just an excuse to play an "evil" character but at the same time going he is just misunderstood and dark. When it is a choice he makes every time he levels to go futher into the darkside, he could go to a temple and start taking levels of cleric anytime he has the chance, the player knows it his character knows it and the DM knows it.

It might be an excuse to play an "evil" character, but with the benefit of him being a part of the party and doing his own thing and hoping to slit their throats in the night or something like that. You're not playing Belkar (OotS), you're playing Angel (Buffyverse). Now, this still might not be for everyone (I am tempted to try this, but on the other hand, the whole "Oh woe is me" thing can get old, sometimes from the beginning ), but I think it's a concept that is viable enough to be a core option.

But here's the thing that gets my goat: why is the warlock considered arcane anyways? It seems pacts with outsiders, while certainly not at the level of dealing with gods, is much more a divine sort of power source. Not that power source is likely to be a big a big deal anyways, but I'd like it more consistent

That's a good question. I think dealing with devils and demons fits "Arcane" better than "Divine". There is a difference between having power granted by your faith in a god, and having your power granted by a pact. Most of the time, Divine characters don't interact directly with their source of power (their god), but dealing with Devils is more "personal".
But that is just one possible view.

 

[Exen Trik]

That's a good question. I think dealing with devils and demons fits "Arcane" better than "Divine". There is a difference between having power granted by your faith in a god, and having your power granted by a pact. Most of the time, Divine characters don't interact directly with their source of power (their god), but dealing with Devils is more "personal".
But that is just one possible view.

A difference yes, but it can be just the difference between a cleric and warlock. Arcane casters seem to have a theme of wielding the forces of the world directly, and divine caster are granted their power from elsewhere. If they need to appeal elsewhere instead of doing it themselves, that strikes me as being a divine source.

On the other hand, if pacts don't so much let the warlock channel their patrons power, but instead are granted a power that stays with them and is used when and how they see fit it might make more sense. But that's not what it sounds like at this point.

 

[hopeless]

I'm still disappointed there's no Elemental Warlock. A Warlock that makes pacts with Djinn or Efreet would be cool. It would also make an Al'Qadim port very easy.

Having read the debate, I think there's quite a wide chasm between me and many other posters on the meaning of the words "good" and "evil." I guess that's to be expected. It's a debate man has been having for a long time.

Wasn't there something in the Zakhara setting about a class that had a bound geneie or efreet or one of those beings?

There was a book about elementalism from Mongoose, but that is an important point, it should be feasible to have a warlock who made a pact with a genie or efreet it would make perfect sense.

Don't know what the shadow warlock is going to be about, the feral one could be something based on fey or nature but infernal speaks for itself.

Perhaps their abilities will be essentially elemental based as that Zakharan specific book was, what was the name of that class again?

Sha- something I think.

Much obliged, its a good sign that warlocks could be any alignment if that could be sorted out.

 

[fuindordm]

A difference yes, but it can be just the difference between a cleric and warlock. Arcane casters seem to have a theme of wielding the forces of the world directly, and divine caster are granted their power from elsewhere. If they need to appeal elsewhere instead of doing it themselves, that strikes me as being a divine source.

On the other hand, if pacts don't so much let the warlock channel their patrons power, but instead are granted a power that stays with them and is used when and how they see fit it might make more sense. But that's not what it sounds like at this point.

The flavor is indeed ambiguous. I pretty much agree with you, though. In my mind, the arcane model of pact magic is "you pay a price, and gain powers". For a Crucible-style witch, the price is paid only at the end of your life. In the meantime, the powers are yours to do with as you please and cannot be taken away--this makes them Arcane.

In my mind, Divine magic should derived from your ongoing relationship with a Patron--you are a conduit for their power, not a scholar using special "prayers" that always work. In game terms the player should be able to choose the effect, of course, but I think that's the key distinction.

 

[Fifth Element]

Correction: Assassin's in the PHB. First class in the book.

In the 1E PHB, assassin was not the first class in the book, since it was a subclass of thief, and therefore listed after thief. Cleric was the first class in the book.

 

[GreatLemur]

he could go to a temple and start taking levels of cleric anytime he has the chance, the player knows it his character knows it and the DM knows it.

This is a very silly campaign world you're imagining.

But here's the thing that gets my goat: why is the warlock considered arcane anyways? It seems pacts with outsiders, while certainly not at the level of dealing with gods, is much more a divine sort of power source. Not that power source is likely to be a big a big deal anyways, but I'd like it more consistent.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Magical power provided by an intelligent external force sounds "divine" by default. But maybe there's a more fundamental difference between arcane and divine magic in 4e, something in the nature of the power rather than just its origins.

 

[pemerton]

So this whole tragic character concept is just an excuse to play an "evil" character but at the same time going he is just misunderstood and dark.

What's wrong with that?

When it is a choice he makes every time he levels to go futher into the darkside, he could go to a temple and start taking levels of cleric anytime he has the chance, the player knows it his character knows it and the DM knows it.

This also seems to confuse the player's choice, which does exist, with the PC's choice, which (if the player has so stipulated) may not.

 

[Sir Brennen]

A post about actual mechanics!

In a brief playtest report blog, Michele Carter mentions

During yesterday's lunchtime playtest, our group was assaulted by a bunch of kruthiks. Man, those little buggers are tough! Things were looking grim for Greg Bilsland's paladin, who was surrounded and about to go down, when one of my warlock effects went off and pushed them away from him...just enough so that Jeremy Crawford's wizard could catch them in an area spell that took them all down. It was a marvel of tactics in action and I'm so *stoked* to see those kinds of interactions occurring on a regular basis.

Hmmm.... striker, or controller?