Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8522572" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Absolutely. Part of the (as I said, IMO fear-driven) avoidance of heavy thematics on classes--leaning heavily into &quot;as generic as can be managed&quot;--is that they've made a lot of the archetypes toothless. The Playtest Warlock was a genuinely somewhat creepy person, actually giving up &quot;minor&quot; aspects of themselves in order to gain greater power. But that got deleted with extreme prejudice when the feedback wasn't overwhelmingly positive.If they'd actually kept the intended fluff of Sorcerer--a being with two souls, always struggling at least a little bit against that pull--and the Warlock--a person continually sacrificing little bits and pieces of who they are, pieces they won't get back if they break their contract--then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The two would be so clearly distinct it wouldn't be possible to conflate them. But 5e was the edition of taking as few chances as possible, and it looked potentially risky to include actual flavor in these. So they watered them down as much as possible, because surely no one can complain if they're inoffensively generic, right? Right?Alright. It definitely had sounded like you were speaking in much broader terms before. If your only intent was to say &quot;hey, that idea sounds...not great&quot; then I may even agree with you. (Haven't seen anything about the Assassin stuff so I can't comment on that.) My apologies for taking something further than you intended.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8522572, member: 6790260"] Absolutely. Part of the (as I said, IMO fear-driven) avoidance of heavy thematics on classes--leaning heavily into "as generic as can be managed"--is that they've made a lot of the archetypes toothless. The Playtest Warlock was a genuinely somewhat creepy person, actually giving up "minor" aspects of themselves in order to gain greater power. But that got deleted with extreme prejudice when the feedback wasn't overwhelmingly positive. If they'd actually kept the intended fluff of Sorcerer--a being with two souls, always struggling at least a little bit against that pull--and the Warlock--a person continually sacrificing little bits and pieces of who they are, pieces they [I]won't get back[/I] if they break their contract--then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The two would be so clearly distinct it wouldn't be [I]possible[/I] to conflate them. But 5e was the edition of taking as few chances as possible, and it looked potentially risky to include actual flavor in these. So they watered them down as much as possible, because surely no one can complain if they're inoffensively generic, right? [I]Right?[/I] Alright. It definitely had sounded like you were speaking in much broader terms before. If your only intent was to say "hey, that idea sounds...not great" then I may even agree with you. (Haven't seen anything about the Assassin stuff so I can't comment on that.) My apologies for taking something further than you intended. [/QUOTE]

Verification