Warlock confirmed in PH1...

[Driddle]

If we get warlocks, then we don't need sorcerers.
It's the same sort of issue of purpose-duplication and lack of identity that gnomes are suffering from.
I'd be OK with sorcerers going away; I've always thought they were sorta flavorless.

 

[JVisgaitis]

If you are referring to the roles video where James Wyatt explains the roles to Gamer_Zero, then no. There was no specifics on how many of each role, or power source, will make it into PH1.

Hmm, I know I either read or saw it somewhere. I'll have to dig it up. They did say 2 of each type and 8 classes unless I'm on crack.

 

[alaric]

They've said 8 classes, but I don't know of any explicit mention of exactly 2 classes per role. Though it would be rather pointless to make a role and only have a single class that fills that role, so that's probably what we'll get.

 

[ForumFerret]

I was originally going to make this a separate thread, but I guess it fits in here.

Perhaps what we're seeing is a break down for the "siloing" many of the developers have mentioned. We know that Vancian spellcasting is mostly gone, and it seems likely that that Wizards will be the premier users of what remains of it.

If we combine that with the stated "every class has per day/per encounter/at will" powers, then maybe what we'll see with Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock power breakdowns is something like this:

Wizards:

• 80% 1x per day spells (vancian magic)
• 10% 1x per encounter spells (area of effect spells, etc)
• 10% at will spells/effects (Cantrips, arcane strike)

Sorcerers:

• 33% 1x per day spells (vancian magic)
• 33% 1x per encounter spells (area of effect, battlefield control)
• 33% at will spells/effects

Warlocks:

• 10% 1x per day spells (buffs, etc)
• 10% 1x per encounter spells (curses, debuffs, dispells)
• 80% at will spells / effects (direct damage)

With some creative powers, and (hopefully) discrete spell lists for Wizards, sorcerers, and Warlocks, this could account for some different playstyles and still give each of the classes a place to 'live' as it were.

Thoughts?

 

[shadow]

I wouldn't mind the presence of the Warlocks if they were portrayed as the Warlocks of legend...dark wizards who make demonic pacts. (The name warlock is derived from the Old English word wǣrloga which mean oath breaker.) However, it seems like the warlock will be like the warlock in the Complete Arcane - essentially a pony whose one trick is to shoot lasers (errr..."arcance blasts"). Flavor text aside, the warlock found in the Complete Arcane seems more appropriate for superhero comics than dark wizards who make dark pacts.

 

[pawsplay]

The tiefling's inclusion in the core rules compelled us to imagine what the D&D world would be like with tieflings around in greater numbers.

Oh for !@#$#@%!@#%!

Sorry.

I think I just realized 4e is going to make me very sad.

 

[breschau]

I was originally going to make this a separate thread, but I guess it fits in here.

Perhaps what we're seeing is a break down for the "siloing" many of the developers have mentioned. We know that Vancian spellcasting is mostly gone, and it seems likely that that Wizards will be the premier users of what remains of it.

If we combine that with the stated "every class has per day/per encounter/at will" powers, then maybe what we'll see with Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock power breakdowns is something like this:

Wizards:

• 80% 1x per day spells (vancian magic)
• 10% 1x per encounter spells (area of effect spells, etc)
• 10% at will spells/effects (Cantrips, arcane strike)

With some creative powers, and (hopefully) discrete spell lists for Wizards, sorcerers, and Warlocks, this could account for some different playstyles and still give each of the classes a place to 'live' as it were.

Thoughts?

I don't know about the rest, but you've actually got the Wizards flipped around. After a wizard uses all his per/day spells, he will still be at 80% of his power.

 

[D.Shaffer]

If we get warlocks, then we don't need sorcerers.
It's the same sort of issue of purpose-duplication and lack of identity that gnomes are suffering from.
I'd be OK with sorcerers going away; I've always thought they were sorta flavorless.

Again, that's only if we assume warlocks to be a carbon clone of their Complete Arcane incarnation. Considering how much the Wizard has changes from what we know, I dont think it's safe to argue that Sorcerors and Warlocks will play the same, have the same roles, or even have the same power source.

 

[ForumFerret]

Did I miss a quote on the magic system somewhere?

In any event, regardless of the actual percentages of their arsenals thus split, I think that could be a decent way to differentiate the 3 classes.

I don't know about the rest, but you've actually got the Wizards flipped around. After a wizard uses all his per/day spells, he will still be at 80% of his power.

 

[occam]

If we go with 3e-like versions of the classes, it looks like we end up with kind of a screwed-up matrix of (presumably) 8 classes for 4e:

Controller: Wizard (A)
Defender: Fighter (M), Paladin (D)
Leader: Cleric (D), Warlord (M)
Striker: Ranger (D), Rogue (M), Warlock (A)

Only one controller, and lots of strikers. If warlocks are actually controllers, then both controllers are arcane, which seems to overload the category for the first PHB.

But if we follow some of the speculation in this thread, where a warlock's otherworldly connections make him a divine controller, and the ranger picks up something from his 1e roots with a bit of arcane spellcasting (so that divine characters don't dominate the scene), then we could balance things out:

Controller: Warlock (D), Wizard (A)
Defender: Fighter (M), Paladin (D)
Leader: Cleric (D), Warlord (M)
Striker: Ranger (A), Rogue (M)

Two of each role, 2 arcane, 3 divine, and 3 martial. Who knows, though.