Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mephista" data-source="post: 6622037" data-attributes="member: 6786252">The warlock has never been a wizard replacement; the Sorcerer, has of 4e, has shifted away from that role as well.&nbsp; However, there are some who've come to expect that any &quot;arcane caster&quot; MUST be a wizard replacement.&nbsp; Even now, when we're clearly seeing divine-caster influences starting to show on them in 5e.Its not quite the fault of the print or explanations, given that, in the past, the classes HAVE been grouped that way.&nbsp; 3e Complete Arcane books, 4e Arcane Power Source, 2e class groupings.&nbsp; So, the &quot;wizard replacement&quot; idea has precedent that I feel has been abandoned in 5e.&nbsp; That said, the warlock class DOES have a lot of issues with it.&nbsp; Pact magic is not easy to grasp or understand.&nbsp; Chain is confusing, given the half-familiar, half-beastmaster nature that doesn't scale.&nbsp; People see &quot;oh, I can summon any martial weapon!&quot; and don't realize the warlock class, as a whole, is meant to be DEX-based.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are influences of the 3e warlock eldritch blaster, the 4e AEDU caster, the 3e and 4e hexblades and binders (3e binder showing up as a Vestige Patron).&nbsp; It goes up to level 9 spells, which makes people assume its like other classes that go up to level 9.&nbsp;&nbsp; Its heavily reliant on short rests, even, so that the frequency of rests determines all your choices.&nbsp; So, no.&nbsp;&nbsp; The warlock class is not explained well.&nbsp; &nbsp; Its too different mechanically, and plays vastly different than a class would expect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mephista, post: 6622037, member: 6786252"] The warlock has never been a wizard replacement; the Sorcerer, has of 4e, has shifted away from that role as well. However, there are some who've come to expect that any "arcane caster" MUST be a wizard replacement. Even now, when we're clearly seeing divine-caster influences starting to show on them in 5e. Its not quite the fault of the print or explanations, given that, in the past, the classes HAVE been grouped that way. 3e Complete Arcane books, 4e Arcane Power Source, 2e class groupings. So, the "wizard replacement" idea has precedent that I feel has been abandoned in 5e. That said, the warlock class DOES have a lot of issues with it. Pact magic is not easy to grasp or understand. Chain is confusing, given the half-familiar, half-beastmaster nature that doesn't scale. People see "oh, I can summon any martial weapon!" and don't realize the warlock class, as a whole, is meant to be DEX-based. There are influences of the 3e warlock eldritch blaster, the 4e AEDU caster, the 3e and 4e hexblades and binders (3e binder showing up as a Vestige Patron). It goes up to level 9 spells, which makes people assume its like other classes that go up to level 9. Its heavily reliant on short rests, even, so that the frequency of rests determines all your choices. So, no. The warlock class is not explained well. Its too different mechanically, and plays vastly different than a class would expect. [/QUOTE]

Verification