Design & Development: The Warlock

Imaro said:
IMHO, that was so not cool.

Especially when it's a valid point and D&D seems to be basing a big chunk of their mythology on a Chrsitian/Judeo belief systems.

IMHO, I thought it was quite pithy.


It is not a valid point; it is someone looking at things from their personal religious background (too emotional and non-objective).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The Warlock should have become a Prestige class, along with the Paladin.

That is the direction I wish they would have taken, in 3.5 the Warlock class was a major mechanical change and deserved its own class. Now that all classes have per day,per encounter, and at will abilities there was no need for it as a base class. Making it a prestige class or a talent tree for Wizard or Sorcorer would be much better.
 


Upside: WotC is totally over any fear they may have had of offending the "chic-tracks" crowd.

Downside: no sorcerer at all, and no druid in the PHBI?
 

Moniker said:
I am not fond of classes that are specifically aligned at 1st level. The Warlock should have become a Prestige class, along with the Paladin.

Paladin's aren't forced into an alignment at 1st level in 4e.

The article didn't state anything about specific alignments that 4e Warlocks must be. Access to scary, otherworldly powers doesn't automatically make one 'evil', after all.
 

Lurks-no-More said:
Actually, I'm wondering if the (possibly fey-powered) feral warlocks are a stand-in for druids...
I was about to write a "not for me" response, explaining what druids needed (IMO) to fill their world-building niche...and I could see them giving those to a 'feral' warlock, making him awesome.

So color me....neutral about druid inclusion ATM.
 

Exen Trik said:
at least some more or less neutral entities.

FERAL.

So, maybe one the three paths is actually celestial, and charges the warlock to collect the souls of the damned for purification, salvation, or whatever?

That is wrong on so many levels. If that would be the only way to have "good" warlocks I'd rathe have them say "only evil alignments"
 

Baby Samurai said:
IMHO, I thought it was quite pithy.


It is not a valid point; it is someone looking at things from their personal religious background (too emotional and non-objective).

And...your response wasn't guided or influenced by your personal background, feelings, whatever...PLEASE. Anything we say or think is influenced by our personal baggage. You seem to want someone to antagonize so I'm finished responding to you.
 

Baby Samurai said:
Ooh, you want to be my daddy, big boy?
Sure. Get off that computer and go mow the damn lawn!

More to the point, your definition of pithy is stretched to breaking and as it turns out you're not going to be worth the effort expended to try and keep you from gleefully crapping your way into a ban. So um, get on with your bad self, I guess.
 


Remove ads

Top