Design & Development: The Warlock

[Cadfan]

For me, flavor is purely for inspiration. I have absolutely zero problem reflavoring a class. I do it reflexively when I create a character. I start from the concept, and build the character using the classes like tools. The class flavor only helps if it cues me in to new concepts.

So count me unconcerned about the warlock's flavor.

What I'm more interested in is the mechanics.

In 3e, the wizard had vancian magic, the sorcerer had vancian magic with a crude hack built in to it, the psion had spell points designed to approximate vancian magic, and the warlock had a list of abilities it could use at will, plus one generic blast attack that could be customized through a "mix and match" feature of shapes and types.

Now the wizard seems to have some at will abilities, and a tiny bit of vancian magic. The sorcerer is instantly rendered redundant, since he was just a wizard with a "no cd" crack installed. The psion isn't redundant, but he will need heavy revision, since his powers used to shadow vancian magic pretty well, except with his own spell point based crack. The psion has a lot of the characteristics that led to the wizard getting revised, so he'll probably get revised as well.

That leaves the warlock. He lost one of his major abilities, the nearly exclusive use of at will powers, to the wizard. I assume that he's going to be more than a wizard with a different power list, since the 4e system seems pretty committed to that. So I wonder what mechanical features he'll have that a wizard will not have?

The article mentions
1. marked targets
2. "boon of souls"
3. curses
4. what I interpret to mean pact like abilities with entities from either the infernal realm, the shadow realm, or the fey realm,
5. eldritch blast is still around
6. curses
7. conjurations
8. movement powers

The last 3 are the most important. I assume the wizard will have access to conjuration, movement powers, and probably curse-like powers since I read that as meaning offensive spells that de-buff. The wizard also has a "wizard strike" (maybe not the final name) which many suspect is an at will attack power.

So, what will the mechanical difference be? I'm sure there will be one, since the design team seems committed to having one. I just don't know what it will be now.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Oh please, here we go again – religion ruins enough things in the world, do we have to bring it onto a game.

Please get over yourself and your religion...

This and your subsequent comments are stepping over the bounds of civility in this forum.

It seems that you need a short break from ENworld. See you in three days.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

You know, I just wanna own up and say that I wasn't at my best in these recent exchanges. Sorry for making it a little worse.

 

[WayneLigon]

The Boon of Souls thing sound very interesting, for the implications: There are things out there that want souls for some purpose, and here is presumably some mechanical benefit for delivery of same.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I know, it's a crushing disappointment that they don't write the whole game entirely based on your personal opinions and needs, isn't it?

Still, buck up. Tomorrow's another day.

What bit of 'don't get personal' didn't you understand? Having warned you about it on page 1 of the thread, it isn't smart to see how close to the line you can sail.

Banned for seven days.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to email me.

 

[GreatLemur]

A lot of folks are sounding very bothered over the mere suggestion of superficially "dark" flavor (whatever that is), as if an illustration of a character with a skull on his weapon means the PHB will be suggesting Chaotic Evil as an appropriate PC alignment.

I don't play or run WoD games becasue you play the monsters and bad guys, I think this at best should have been an NPC class like the Villian classes out of Iron Heroes.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to assume that the Warlock is necessarily evil. Remember, it already looks like we're leaving alignment requirements for base classes behind, even for the Paladin. And the 4e Warlock seems to be specificically offering the possibility of non-evil patron entities

The mechanic parts are also very bad fluff, the whole send to Hell and takes lots of damage for one round sounds like something I would have made up when I was in Junior High.

I definitely see your point here, though.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Actually, I'm wondering if the (possibly fey-powered) feral warlocks are a stand-in for druids...

That thought had occurred to me too (and in fact I'm disappointed that I couldn't look clever by being the first one to suggest it).

Feral warlocks could have a very natural tie-in to shapeshifters (which is arguably the defining class feature of druids).

I could really run with that idea.

 

[Cam Banks]

That thought had occurred to me too (and in fact I'm disappointed that I couldn't look clever by being the first one to suggest it).

Feral warlocks could have a very natural tie-in to shapeshifters (which is arguably the defining class feature of druids).

I could really run with that idea.

Seems tailor-made for shifters in Eberron, too. A shifter feral warlock?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Gargoyle]

Perhaps the warlock class isn't for you, then? I don't mean to sound exclusionary, but this is just making me think of someone who likes playing honorable chivalrous characters complaining about the rogue class not having enough flavor options, or something.

Or perhaps he's a DM not looking forward to telling his players that they will not be able to play warlocks because he wants to run a heroic campaign, and he just doesn't see such a dark class as working with his campaign.
I'm not against having such a class, and I certainly understand that I don't have to have warlocks in my campaigns any more than I need LG paladins. But I can empathize with folks that don't like the change, not because that class is "not for them" but because it's something of a fundamental change in the game as a whole. It's a darker D&D, and like it or not it's going to affect a lot of campaigns, because good DM's hate to restrict player choices, and don't have time to rework the warlock to be less "evil-ish".

As far as reworking warlocks to be "less dark" I personally wouldn't think of it. It would be like reworking the fighter to be less "warrior-ish". I want my warlocks to be damned souls terrified of death and the judgement they are going to face for the powers they've dared to tap.

So I like the class and would use it IMC, but that's me.

 

[ForceUser]

Whoops, didn't see this thread. I promise I looked before posting mine!

Anyway, I'm going to have to agree with the evilgasm crowd. Can't wait.