SPECULATION: Wizard vs. Warlock

[WarlockLord]

So, now that we've seen previews of both classes...how do they stack up?

The wizard preview, I thought, left a bad taste in my mouth. I like the idea of implements...but the "traditions" (Emerald Frost, anyone?) and such were not too great. Also, from most of the playtests, it looks like the wizard will be shoehorned into an evoker role. What was wrong with generalists in 3.5? While I realize they will still be getting disguise self, sleep, and some minor invisibility, it's still not as cool as the 3.5 generalist wizard. Is summoning still in? I know it was in the original article.


On the other hand, the warlock looks GREAT! Curses, summoning, and pacts with supernatural powers are pretty cool. It appears to have a substantial amount of controller power, and will be a cool and flavorful class.

On a final note, which introduction sounds cooler?

"Greetings. I am a wizard of the Emerald Frost."

OR

"Greetings. I am a warlock in the service of the Shadow."

 

[The Little Raven]

The wizard preview, I thought, left a bad taste in my mouth. I like the idea of implements...but the "traditions" (Emerald Frost, anyone?) and such were not too great.

Traditions are great, IMHO, since nothing annoys me more than the concept that a wizard just picked up a book one day and starting learning scholarly magic, instead of joining an ancient and mystic tradition, through which he must be initiated into the mysteries of the universe.

Also, from most of the playtests, it looks like the wizard will be shoehorned into an evoker role. What was wrong with generalists in 3.5? While I realize they will still be getting disguise self, sleep, and some minor invisibility, it's still not as cool as the 3.5 generalist wizard. Is summoning still in? I know it was in the original article.

A wizard is still more of a generalist. He looks to have much more general spells than the warlock (damage, control) or the cleric (healing, support). They just want to avoid the problem with 3e's spellcasters, in that by a certain level they begin to overshadow everyone else in the game, since they can emulate any class role.

On the other hand, the warlock looks GREAT! Curses, summoning, and pacts with supernatural powers are pretty cool. It appears to have a substantial amount of controller power, and will be a cool and flavorful class.

Totally awesome.

On a final note, which introduction sounds cooler?

"Greetings. I am a wizard of the Emerald Frost."

OR

"Greetings. I am a warlock in the service of the Shadow."

Neither, since they're both just generic.

"Salutations. I am Fedoure, initiate of the Seventh Circle, acolyte of Balzar, master of the path of the Emerald Frost."

"Merry meet, "friend," I am Fedoure, master of that which must not be named, and I have come here today to teach you the wonders of that great Shadow which lurks beyond."

Sound better to me.

 

[WarlockLord]

Also, any thoughts on multi-classing them?

 

[SpiderMonkey]

So, now that we've seen previews of both classes...how do they stack up?

The wizard preview, I thought, left a bad taste in my mouth. I like the idea of implements...but the "traditions" (Emerald Frost, anyone?) and such were not too great. Also, from most of the playtests, it looks like the wizard will be shoehorned into an evoker role. What was wrong with generalists in 3.5? While I realize they will still be getting disguise self, sleep, and some minor invisibility, it's still not as cool as the 3.5 generalist wizard. Is summoning still in? I know it was in the original article.


On the other hand, the warlock looks GREAT! Curses, summoning, and pacts with supernatural powers are pretty cool. It appears to have a substantial amount of controller power, and will be a cool and flavorful class.

On a final note, which introduction sounds cooler?

"Greetings. I am a wizard of the Emerald Frost."

OR

"Greetings. I am a warlock in the service of the Shadow."

Not that I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before, but I really like what I've read about implements and traditions.

Except for the gorram names. And I'm one of the few that actually *likes* the new plane names.

 

[Lanefan]

Also, from most of the playtests, it looks like the wizard will be shoehorned into an evoker role. What was wrong with generalists in 3.5? While I realize they will still be getting disguise self, sleep, and some minor invisibility, it's still not as cool as the 3.5 generalist wizard. Is summoning still in? I know it was in the original article.

On the other hand, the warlock looks GREAT! Curses, summoning, and pacts with supernatural powers are pretty cool. It appears to have a substantial amount of controller power, and will be a cool and flavorful class.

So wizards become evokers-with-extras, and warlocks become Necromancers-lite. OK; got it.

But what happens to Illusionists?

Lanefan

 

[Gloombunny]

What is it that's causing people to think wizards will be mostly evokers? Did I miss something? I figured that if anything they'd be pushed more towards conjuration, since that's where most of the battlefield control spells are.

Re: illusionists: Rich Baker talked here about trimming down the wizard's access to illusion and necromancy somewhat to better make room for illusionist and necromancer classes in some future book, while assuring that classic spells like Invisibility will remain available to the wizard.

 

[WhatGravitas]

What is it that's causing people to think wizards will be mostly evokers? Did I miss something? I figured that if anything they'd be pushed more towards conjuration, since that's where most of the battlefield control spells are.

Wizards equal evokers? Bleh. I don't think so, especially after reading about a successful sleep-spell. I think they will retain wizards as a generalist. It's the core of their being, after all.

And I liked the wizard very much, after reading the first implement-article, just the second one was a bit... less pleasant in flavour.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Wormwood]

On a final note, which introduction sounds cooler?

"Greetings. I am a wizard of the Emerald Frost."

OR

"Greetings. I am a warlock in the service of the Shadow."

*shrug*

They both sound fine to me.

 

[WarlockLord]

What is it that's causing people to think wizards will be mostly evokers? Did I miss something? I figured that if anything they'd be pushed more towards conjuration, since that's where most of the battlefield control spells are.

Re: illusionists: Rich Baker talked here about trimming down the wizard's access to illusion and necromancy somewhat to better make room for illusionist and necromancer classes in some future book, while assuring that classic spells like Invisibility will remain available to the wizard.

I know, I read the Rich Baker thing. But, I've noticed, in most of the playtests, the wizards focus on slinging around fire spells (and I guess WoTC is considering AoE effects control, but i can't say where I read this) and only the playtest in Chris Perkin's blog has the sleep.

Someone please prove me wrong on this.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

On a final note, which introduction sounds cooler?

"Greetings. I am a wizard of the Emerald Frost."

OR

"Greetings. I am a warlock in the service of the Shadow."

Neither; this is much better:

"I am Galstaff, Sorcerer of Light!"