Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L November 4th Warlock Design
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6212102" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>I find it to be a very interesting subclass design decision to go with what you do with the power you are given, as opposed to who it is that is giving it to you. It actually solves a problem of player expectation and helps save space in the first PH.</p><p></p><p>As it stands... the three "pacts" that Mike illustrated are indeed the three methodologies that warlocks have exhibited thus far in the game-- the melee fighter, the caster, and the binder. This stands in opposition of the much larger number of patrons that have been created in the game thus far-- the fey, the infernals, the star, the dark, the vestiges etc.</p><p></p><p>If WotC created the subclass mechanics off of the patrons themselves... there's a good chance they wouldn't be able to include ALL the patrons as options in the first player's handbook because there's just too many of them. Some would have to have been held back due to space. And that would cause consternation in a good swathe of the playerbase-- knowing that they wouldn't be able to play their Dark pact warlock from the beginning of Next for example.</p><p></p><p>But if instead they design it such that the choice of patron gives much more of a fluff and story overlay to the character, as opposed to a list of specific abilities that need to be described for levels 6, 10, 14 etc. etc... you can include many more patron descriptions in the first book of the game. You can have a paragraph written of each of the six to eight patron types, without needing a long list of game mechanics for each of those six to eight. Instead... you only need to list and explain the game mechanics for <em>three</em>-- the blade, the book, and the chain. As you create your character, you select a patron as the background and storyboard for who your warlock is... and then you select your pact to give you the mechanics to show off what power you are given and how you exhibit it.</p><p></p><p>And to top it off... it also means that every type of patron can have warlocks of all three types of subclasses. You can have fey blades *and* fey casters, *and* fey binders (as well as infernal blades, casters and binders, star blades, casters and binders etc.) That will give many more options to players for deciding how they want to exhibit the abilities their patron has given them.</p><p></p><p>I think these three pacts-- blade, book, and chain... will actually give more options for people right off the bat, and also make the creation of new patrons easier to accomplish (since you won't have to create a whole list of game mechanics to go with them.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6212102, member: 7006"] I find it to be a very interesting subclass design decision to go with what you do with the power you are given, as opposed to who it is that is giving it to you. It actually solves a problem of player expectation and helps save space in the first PH. As it stands... the three "pacts" that Mike illustrated are indeed the three methodologies that warlocks have exhibited thus far in the game-- the melee fighter, the caster, and the binder. This stands in opposition of the much larger number of patrons that have been created in the game thus far-- the fey, the infernals, the star, the dark, the vestiges etc. If WotC created the subclass mechanics off of the patrons themselves... there's a good chance they wouldn't be able to include ALL the patrons as options in the first player's handbook because there's just too many of them. Some would have to have been held back due to space. And that would cause consternation in a good swathe of the playerbase-- knowing that they wouldn't be able to play their Dark pact warlock from the beginning of Next for example. But if instead they design it such that the choice of patron gives much more of a fluff and story overlay to the character, as opposed to a list of specific abilities that need to be described for levels 6, 10, 14 etc. etc... you can include many more patron descriptions in the first book of the game. You can have a paragraph written of each of the six to eight patron types, without needing a long list of game mechanics for each of those six to eight. Instead... you only need to list and explain the game mechanics for [I]three[/I]-- the blade, the book, and the chain. As you create your character, you select a patron as the background and storyboard for who your warlock is... and then you select your pact to give you the mechanics to show off what power you are given and how you exhibit it. And to top it off... it also means that every type of patron can have warlocks of all three types of subclasses. You can have fey blades *and* fey casters, *and* fey binders (as well as infernal blades, casters and binders, star blades, casters and binders etc.) That will give many more options to players for deciding how they want to exhibit the abilities their patron has given them. I think these three pacts-- blade, book, and chain... will actually give more options for people right off the bat, and also make the creation of new patrons easier to accomplish (since you won't have to create a whole list of game mechanics to go with them.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
L&L November 4th Warlock Design
Top