Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SailorNash" data-source="post: 6879803" data-attributes="member: 6788401">No, only that by virtue of being so mechanically different Warlock has more than its share. Or, I probably should say yes but in very small degrees. Ideally there shouldn't be any confusion over the basics, whether or not one agrees with the intent. A well-written class wouldn't need errata. One with problems would need either balance or clarification. I think this is a different issue than house rules as well. You may disagree with a Druid turning into a bear at level 2, but there is little doubt this is possible. A house rule might smooth that power curve to make for a better game. Having to decide what a Warlock can or can't do with their primary class features reinvents this class on the fly, and wouldn't be consistent between games. Again, my own experience here, but if I want to play a Warlock I have to approach the DM with a whole sheet full of questions to ask. Ones that would determine whether or not I even attempt the class. I can't recall doing so with other characters, and even if a ruling doesn't fall my way, it's usually not so severe as to talk me into trying something else.</blockquote>