Design & Development: The Warlock

[Soel]

I was already looking to make a warlock/binder gestalt for an upcoming campaign. Sounds like they made it easy for me to convert it when 4e comes...

And the "go to hell" ability, that's just precious!

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Meh.

I am highly displeased at the loss of the druid, a PC-friendly legacy class, in favor of some flashy new NPC-friendly warlock class.

The absence of druids in the PHB creates a void where a traditional (and vital to my campaign) class exists. Whereas the warlock fills a narrow niche that could easily be filled by wizard or sorcerer.

My first exposure to the warlock was last year with NWN2 and I was pretty underwhelmed; I've not found a reason to play one yet. And the character Jerro is a surly boor... and a party liability, usually being the first to fall in combat.

I see little use for them as a core PHB class. The players in my pnp campaign generally choose to be good-guys. And personally, playing an evil PC holds no appeal, even as a roleplaying "challenge". Bad behavior is contrary to heroic adventuring and detrimental to party cohesion.

So basically, while the class seems fleshy enough, and the flavor makes them an interesting foe, the warlock will be relegated to NPC status serving as antagonist or short-term patron.

As a PC class, they strike me as mere fodder for rebellious goth and death metal types. I can expect there'll be a wave of half-drow tiefling warlocks soon.

The darkwave angst is growing a bit thick in this edition.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not quite everyone - I still see arguments about it...

I expect he was referring to the designers...

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I see little use for them as a core PHB class. The players in my pnp campaign generally choose to be good-guys. And personally, playing an evil PC holds no appeal, even as a roleplaying "challenge".

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.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The darkwave angst is growing a bit thick in this edition.

1e had the assassin, a class which had to be of evil alignment.

Gary Gygax = 100% metüll

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

1e had the assassin, a class which had to be of evil alignment.

Gary Gygax = 100% metüll

Let's not forget one of the most iconic pieces of 1e art.

A Paladin....IN HELL!!!!! *screeching power chord solo*

Man, it's almost as if these things existed before Sisters of Mercy. But that couldn't be, right? I mean, then they'd be tapping into mythology and folklore and common cultural supernatural archetypes, rather than teenagers and WoW and anime and other stuff that frightens old people.

 

[Li Shenron]

I also want to add that IMHO the 3.5 Warlock was not introduced because of the concept, which could have been easily covered by Wizard, Sorcerer or even Cleric with an appropriate choice of abilities, but because of the mechanics. It was a clear attempt at getting away from vancian magic and test a spellcaster that would have no daily limits on his magical resources.

I hated it for many reasons in 3.5.

But now that 4e is a different ruleset, and that EVERYONE has daily abilities together with at-will abilities, there is no major mechanical difference between Warlocks and the other characters. So the differences are all in the character concept, and of course in the specific abilities that are being designed based on the concept.

And I have to say I like this 4e concept much more than the 3.5 one. It's much more well-round thought out. It's not too narrow, because there is mention of actually different things, from pacts to souls and perhaps even truenames (and why not blood magic? at this point, the Warlock could be a receptacle of all the "twisted" methods of gathering magic powers). This makes the concept wide enough to fully deserve its own core class.

As I said before, my only regret is that the introduction of the Warlock and the Warlord is being done at the expense of the loss of the Druid, which I think it's really sad, since the Druid is a long-time established core class.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Oh, absolutely unhappy about the apparent lack of the druid. BIIIIIG contributor in my "would you be happier with a 3.5/IH/4e/AE d20 hack?" thoughts, in fact. I like druids.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Meh.

I am highly displeased at the loss of the druid, a PC-friendly legacy class, in favor of some flashy new NPC-friendly warlock class.

The absence of druids in the PHB creates a void where a traditional (and vital to my campaign) class exists. Whereas the warlock fills a narrow niche that could easily be filled by wizard or sorcerer.

Oh, I might miss the Druid, too. (Though one of my favourite characters was a Druid/Shifter, not a pure Druid.)

But how important is the Druid to your world? Is it just the class abilities (Nature Sense, Wild Empathy, Animal Companion, Wild Shape)? Or is it the general flavour of an "Agent/Ally of Nature"?

I think other character classes can fit the flavour, too. Possibly even a Warlock (if he has a patron from the Feywild, for example) and very likely a Cleric.

Admittedly, it still requires more work when adapting your setting.

 

[Paraxis]

This is the first bit of fluff that I don't like from everything 4E. I don't plan on having those type of characters in my game. It would have made much more sense to make the flavor a bit more universal.

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.

Taking up space in my PHB for this is a waste to me, Druid or Bard should have taken it's place.

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.

All in all one class won't make me overly upset with 4E, but this is the first black mark I've seen.