Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Paraxis" data-source="post: 3830200" data-attributes="member: 13009">I think it comes down to the fact that core PC classes should be generic as possible.Fighter: no preconceptions of morality, he can be a knight templar or a cold hearted killer.Rogue: only preconception is that he should be good at getting past traps for most parties, a secret agent for the court or a cut throat assassin.Cleric: has a holy patron who gives him powers, can be Pelor or VecnaWizard: studies arcane magic and casts spells through that understanding, can be an illusionist who uses his magic in defense of his town and entertainment or could be a necromancer who stalks the graveyards looking for his next vile undead slave.Warlock: Sure we got a one line snipit that the patron could be feral or shadow based in addition to infernal, but to be honest both of those sound not very good to me either, and in the 3.5 write up for warlock there was a one line snipit that they could get powers from fey or other outsides....then the whole class was demon themed all the powers the DR/silver ect....&nbsp;&nbsp; So I don't have faith in WoTC to make feral or shadow that much different then the infernal warlock.So Warlock is not generic it is a going the exact opposite road that they are taking Paladin in.If they wanted Warlock's to be all dark and evil all the time but left me Paladins as a force of only light and good then that would be ok, but they did not.&nbsp; All this talk about how you can change a few words and make a good warlock is the same thing that people said about making evil paladins, but when WoTC said paladins would be any alignment most thought that was a great idea long past its time if those same people think warlocks are good as written then they are hypocrites.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Paraxis, post: 3830200, member: 13009"] I think it comes down to the fact that core PC classes should be generic as possible. Fighter: no preconceptions of morality, he can be a knight templar or a cold hearted killer. Rogue: only preconception is that he should be good at getting past traps for most parties, a secret agent for the court or a cut throat assassin. Cleric: has a holy patron who gives him powers, can be Pelor or Vecna Wizard: studies arcane magic and casts spells through that understanding, can be an illusionist who uses his magic in defense of his town and entertainment or could be a necromancer who stalks the graveyards looking for his next vile undead slave. Warlock: Sure we got a one line snipit that the patron could be feral or shadow based in addition to infernal, but to be honest both of those sound not very good to me either, and in the 3.5 write up for warlock there was a one line snipit that they could get powers from fey or other outsides....then the whole class was demon themed all the powers the DR/silver ect.... So I don't have faith in WoTC to make feral or shadow that much different then the infernal warlock. So Warlock is not generic it is a going the exact opposite road that they are taking Paladin in. If they wanted Warlock's to be all dark and evil all the time but left me Paladins as a force of only light and good then that would be ok, but they did not. All this talk about how you can change a few words and make a good warlock is the same thing that people said about making evil paladins, but when WoTC said paladins would be any alignment most thought that was a great idea long past its time if those same people think warlocks are good as written then they are hypocrites. [/QUOTE]

Verification