Warlock and Sorcerer

[TrippyHippy]

Y'know, one thing I'd like to see changed if Warlocks (AKA Witches!!!) are a core class, is the limitation of refering exclusively to Arcane and Divine 'power sources'. Warlocks aren't really tapping into the same source of power as the arcane casting Wizards, in the same way that Druids aren't tapping into a Divine source. Druids are really 'Primal' casters, and Warlocks/Witches are arguably 'Diaboliocal' casters (although some of them might be quite good! ).

Sorcerers are an odd deal, and this is why I'd like them to be worked on in terms of a strong differentiating theme to Wizards. The 3rd Edition Sorcerers were really just spontaneously casting wizards - which isn't a strong enough archetype in my view to be worth it. I'm not saying don't have the Sorcerer, just make the differentiation more thematically apparent.[EDIT] Actually, having commented on the other thread - having a Sorcerer based on a 'Chaos' power source would make for a much more interesting theme. Actually, it'd make me really want to play one....

 

[Underman]

The word warlock means "oath breaker." I want to be able to forge a pact with a demon, take the fiendish powers it grants, tell it "hey thanks!", flip it the bird and then use those dark powers for good. If that character concept is "wrong," I don't want to be right.

In that character concept, how do you explain why this dark patron is giving away fiendish powers like free candy? What's in it for him/her? Why wouldn't the patron keep checking on the progress of the dark pact like a bad landlord and the warlock is paying rent? Why is the PC warlock apparently smarter than the immortal patron whose been doing this for centuries and expects foolish mortals to try to flip the bird? I don't think it's "wrong" per se, but it seems too convenient or perhaps naive for what I'd expect from the D&D world. I just don't understand why it would be the norm for a D&D world. If the warlock rules represent the 'norm' for dark bargains, I'd like to see exceptional cases being optional from the default rules.

I'm not saying that warlock pacts shouldn't come with drawbacks. That's the price that comes with taking that shortcut to power. I just don't want to be forced to have to "pray" to my patron to get my expendable powers back. Once the pact has been sealed, I should never have to deal with my patron again.

Once the pact has been sealed, and the stupid patron feels screwed, and your warlock is still running 100% of the fiend's powers, can the fiend seek vengeance and send minions to kill you or other punishment?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Thematically, if the Warlock/Witch Class is based on Faustian pacts with diabolocal forces, then I, for one, would expect all these characters to find it increasingly difficult to escape a nasty end as they progress in level.

Power and consequences and all that. All diabolists will be screwed by the devil in the end.

This is not to say that it wouldn't be really fun to play - just that, like Vampires in the White Wolf game, they are all thematically doomed in the end. That'd be nice...

 

[Xris Robin]

Ghost Rider and Spawn. It's a classic trope to betray the evil patron that grants you power. There may be downsides to it, but that just makes for a better story.

 

[Yora]

The 3rd Edition Sorcerers were really just spontaneously casting wizards - which isn't a strong enough archetype in my view to be worth it. I'm not saying don't have the Sorcerer, just make the differentiation more thematically apparent.

I know, but you just can't get them convinced that wizards should be dropped from the game.

 

[Falling Icicle]

In that character concept, how do you explain why this dark patron is giving away fiendish powers like free candy? What's in it for him/her? Why wouldn't the patron keep checking on the progress of the dark pact like a bad landlord and the warlock is paying rent?

Because it benefits from the drawback that is an intrinsic part of the warlock's pact. Varenestra gets to steal some of your beauty, for example. We don't know yet what an archdemon gets, but I'm sure it gets to take something from the warlock. There's no escaping that, and that's fine with me. I only have a problem with the idea that the warlock is dependent upon the patron to refuel his abilities. Once the pact is sealed, the power should be his.

Once the pact has been sealed, and the stupid patron feels screwed, and your warlock is still running 100% of the fiend's powers, can the fiend seek vengeance and send minions to kill you or other punishment?

Absolutely. I just don't want the patron to be able to go "yoink! you have no powers anymore!"

 

[TrippyHippy]

I know, but you just can't get them convinced that wizards should be dropped from the game.

Well, that's because some players like playing Wizards as they are. All I'm saying is don't just base the Sorcerer Class on mechanical issues, but actually represent an archetype that is distinct from the arcane, spellbook studying Wizard.

Sorcerers could be cool, especially if you can really play freaky ones. I just don't think the 3rd edition Sorcerer had any fully developed theme to support anything particularly imaginitive.

 

[variant]

I would like to see the sorcerer get their own spells instead of sharing 100% with the wizard.

 

[Yora]

Given that they call it a "Sorcerer Spell List" right now, I think this is highly likely, with some overlap.

Though I don't really see what a sorcerer would be able to do, what a wizard can't.

 

[Underman]

Absolutely.

Make sense for some archetypes I guess (get permanent power, pay for later if you doublecross).

I just don't want the patron to be able to go "yoink! you have no powers anymore!"

Before you create a warlock, make a pact with the Dungeon Master entity. The deal is that the patron will not yoink your PC's powers without your consent.

Reading the playtest now, I believe the simple rite is there to justify for the simulationist crowd (myself included) how the warlock is receiving those powers.

Or... you could refluff it so that the warlock does a simple rite to draw the power from within (like a sorcerer does, but using a rite and not willpower)

BTW, I LOVE how warlocks are not assumed to have diabolic/fiendish patrons by default, according to the reading of the playtest (vs the original "evil-is-kewl" warlock).