Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 7466792" data-attributes="member: 6689464">It isn't that. It is just that, well the archetype itself is highly uninteresting to me. I cannot find any single thing about it that sounds even remotely appealing. Then there's this over exposition to it (it is one of the most popular classes out there), and seeing it used as an excuse for powergaming -if not actual munchkinism-. And of course being told over and over the last few years &quot;Just fo play a wizard&quot;, &quot;what you want is a wizard&quot; over and over has just soured upon me.(There's more personal stuff, but basically my own power fantasies don't involve books on any way or shape, my day job involves plenty of them already thank you.)_________________________________During a feverish dream recently, I got a plot bunny for a D&amp;D inspired story. I hope to do it soon. Part of it got me thinking on this Warlock class -if I ever get it off the ground it'll be obvious why-. I in this thread it has been said that no member of a divine class would make a pact as it would be faltering on their faith. And even with sorcerers, as it would mean they don't trust in their own power or something.&nbsp; But that is assuming the pacts are all transactional contracts with clearly spelled out conditions, who says a warlock is even a willing subject? It is entirely possible an entity just wants to empower someone as a means of advancing its own goals! Maybe they are hoping to corrupt the paladin, or to sway a servant of the gods into forgoing them, or just plain increase its influence on the world by flaunting its presence, the patron doesn't need anything as superfluous as the other party's consent. This idea basically justifies any and all warlock multiclassing at once!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 7466792, member: 6689464"] It isn't that. It is just that, well the archetype itself is highly uninteresting to me. I cannot find any single thing about it that sounds even remotely appealing. Then there's this over exposition to it (it is one of the most popular classes out there), and seeing it used as an excuse for powergaming -if not actual munchkinism-. And of course being told over and over the last few years "Just fo play a wizard", "what you want is a wizard" over and over has just soured upon me.(There's more personal stuff, but basically my own power fantasies don't involve books on any way or shape, my day job involves plenty of them already thank you.) _________________________________ During a feverish dream recently, I got a plot bunny for a D&D inspired story. I hope to do it soon. Part of it got me thinking on this Warlock class -if I ever get it off the ground it'll be obvious why-. I in this thread it has been said that no member of a divine class would make a pact as it would be faltering on their faith. And even with sorcerers, as it would mean they don't trust in their own power or something. But that is assuming the pacts are all transactional contracts with clearly spelled out conditions, who says a warlock is even a willing subject? It is entirely possible an entity just wants to empower someone as a means of advancing its own goals! Maybe they are hoping to corrupt the paladin, or to sway a servant of the gods into forgoing them, or just plain increase its influence on the world by flaunting its presence, the patron doesn't need anything as superfluous as the other party's consent. This idea basically justifies any and all warlock multiclassing at once! [/QUOTE]

Verification