Warlock Fluff - Poll

[Stormonu]

Link to D&D article about the sorcerer and the Warlock.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120821

How much do you agree/disagree with the "fluff" stating how the Warlock gets his powers or uses them?

 

[MarkB]

What I mostly disagree with, for both the Warlock and Sorcerer, is how specifically and narrowly they're defining them.

To me, Warlock and Sorcerer are class concepts that can be adapted to any of a number of role-playing concepts, even within the same campaign setting. I'd far rather just see some minimal, bare-bones fluff on how Warlocks and Sorcerers operate in general terms, and save the detailed fluff for individual power sources (pacts for Warlocks, origins for Sorcerers). That leaves things wide open for if players or DMs want to introduce new pacts or origins to represent different character concepts.

Heck, I even played a devoutly-religious warlock back in 3.5e who derived his powers from a divine source.

 

[Mengu]

Voted lemon curry. They can fluff it how they want, I'll fluff it how I want.

 

[IronWolf]

What I mostly disagree with, for both the Warlock and Sorcerer, is how specifically and narrowly they're defining them.

Yep, I think they are defining them much too narrowly. There should be more room for players to be creative and fill in the blanks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What I mostly disagree with, for both the Warlock and Sorcerer, is how specifically and narrowly they're defining them.

Agreed. Try defining a wizard this narrowly. Your elven generalist academic has very little in common with your gnome illusionist or your lich necromancer or your dwarf magic shop owner or your human evoker, etc.

In the D&D context, wizardry, sorcery, and warlockery (witchcraft?) are just ways of casting spells. Not a ton of specific fluff needs to be attached to any of them.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Lemon Curry. I find this as a great example of what one warlock's origin could be. And since I view all fluff in every D&D book I've ever read as a sample of what could be, I don't find myself complaining that the desiners have ever too narrowly defined anything. The fluuf they've provided gives me a good jumping-off point as DM or player to decide what each warlock is in my game.

 

[Salamandyr]

I like it. I'm hoping their is enough of a range of beings provided to pact with that you cover both Faust and Doctor Strange. It's a bit overly detailed for a general class. I'd almost prefer a "magic-user" class with a warlock specialty that modifies them, but considering they're showcasing an entirely different magic acquisition system, that's a bit too much to hope for.

For my Sword & Sorcery world, the warlock is probably going to be the default wizard.

 

[avin]

Voted 5.

Pacts are a distinct way of make Warlocks different from Sorcerers and Wizards.

In fact, I like this new L&L better than what I remember from 4E.

As for Sorcerers, Bloodlines are better than second souls. Ancient blood calling... not a true entity... something more vague and wide (if they were Clerics, Warlocks would worship the God of Blacksmiths while Sorcerer would be inspired by The Way of Blacksmiths).

 

[Victim]

It's cool, but I really prefer warlocks to be sort of "easy entry" class at least for some of the pacts, even if most people don't go for it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

With each class having such different mechanics, and, presumably, thus representing some of the 'modularity' of 5e, there's not a strong need to give them very specific and distinct fluff, as well. And, if a Sorcerer or Worlock is supposed to be a mechanical 'modular' alternative to the wizard's Vancian casting, it would have made sense to make them broadly re-flavorable.