Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anthtriel" data-source="post: 3858228" data-attributes="member: 13764">Explain how the current, rough character concepts are "stretched". And if you do, give me two different takes on a human paladin that are not "stretched". (If you critize Paladins just as much as you critize Warlocks, take Rangers instead, or some other class, except the Cleric and the Wizard. Those two classes always covered a lot of ground, in 3.5 arguably too much ground, given their mechanics.)Unless they specifically write "Do xy, otherwise you cannot take levels as Warlock", then I agree with you, that would be a terribly stupid decision. Which is why it probably won't be done that way.As long as it is not there, advancing as a Warlock only means that your abilities become stronger. The flavor could be that your patron gives you more power for your loyal service, but he could just as well give more power to tempt you more to use it, since you stubbornly refused; or it could represent how the abilities become more and more intuitive as you use them, just as a Sorcerer's abilities increase.The Warlock who outright refuses to use his abilities and instead does something else should probably advance in something else, yes. But I specifically wrote that he continues to use his abilities for survival, so I'm covered. Well, when I said "tries to keep others out of it", I didn't mean "will refuse to use it against his enemies". That would be stupid, the power wouldn't help him in that case.What I meant were innocents.</blockquote>

Verification