Warlock too narrowly defined?

[Sadrik]

A narrowly focused character type is fine but imo it does not offer enough options for the player. Warlock please take the necromancer's stuff and any other dark magic niches that are too small or narrowly defined to warrant a class.

It is like the barbarian a nice class but because the fluff is so all-encompassing it eats into the rules (cant read etc.) The rules force the player to make his character a certain way and it doesn't offer an alternative. Maybe the barbarian is just a guy who simply is very tough and flies into a rage when he gets in a fight, it doesn't mean that guy has to be dumb and all the other stuff that gets tacked onto playing a barbarian. I hope that the warlock is not so narrowly defined that it can only encompass 1 fluff niche.

I have now played in two campaigns where DM's have taken an arbitrary view of what exactly a barbarian is based on the classes fluff. I don't want to have "the new barbarian" in PHBI that has to be bread with demons or so inextricably linked to their background fluff it straight-jackets the player and makes the DM go hmm, I cant see beyond the class fluff.

That is why I say have the mechanics open them up to several fluff niches mechanically because otherwise we will have the new barbarian on our hands.

 

[Cadfan]

I was going to vote "no" because there was just a blog post about making sure that the warlock had powers with more variety of flavor then "dark, dark, and more dark." But then I read this line,

I have now played in two campaigns where DM's have taken an arbitrary view of what exactly a barbarian is based on the classes fluff. I don't want to have "the new barbarian" in PHBI that has to be bread with demons or so inextricably linked to their background fluff it straight-jackets the player and makes the DM go hmm, I cant see beyond the class fluff.

I agree with that a great deal. I hate close minded DMs who aren't open to using the mechanics from a class but reflavoring it. The barbarian could certainly represent a lot of things. One thing I've used him for (on an NPC) was a bad guy who could suffuse himself with the power of his god, granting him incredible strength and resilience, but only for a short period of time. The players never knew he was a "barbarian" in platemail. They thought he was some kind of custom blackguard.

My ideal solution to this would also involve a paragraph in the player's handbook and the DMG telling both players and DMs that they should feel free to imagine what else a class could represent. There have been some neat articles on this subject in Dragon over the years. We wouldn't need a full write up of other options, but it would be nice to have the suggestion that its allowed.

 

[Szatany]

Before I answer the question I have to ask my own:

What do we know about 4e warlock exactly?

 

[Nifft]

has to be bread with demons

Try "bred" instead, it's low-carb.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Sadrik]

Try "bred" instead, it's low-carb.

LOL. Come on, gimme some bread. I bread dogs in a former life. You know- feed them- bread...

 

[frankthedm]

Not too narrowly defined. Gone are the days when one or two casters can cover all basis. The game is moving to a direction where NO one caster gets to do everything.

And if you have a beef with your DMs deciding the powerful rage ability only coming from barbaric cultures, that is their call. Barbs got plenty of skill points to pay for literacy and no one forced you to put a low score into Int.

 

[Sadrik]

Not too narrowly defined. Gone are the days when one or two casters can cover all basis. The game is moving to a direction where NO one caster gets to do everything.

I agree, however I think, like everything in life it is not black or white. I suppose the two extremes would be "Caster" which cover arcane, divine, and psychic powers and the other extreme would be every possible micro-niche being capitalized on by its own class. At some point you have to start grouping like effects together and say, this is similar and let the player or DM place the fluff on to make it a whole class.
I think that there should be:
a wizard, an elemental sorcerer, an illusionist, a warlock, a bard.

Each one is left there to specialize in there own devices: wizard- sort of generalizes and does a bit of everything however I think summoning, teleporting and reality and time manipulation should be their forte, elemental sorcerer- choose an element and gain powers based on the element chosen (fire- fire damage, water- cold damage, earth- physical, air- lightning), illusionist- figments, shadow magic, rogue stuff, warlock- dark magic, demons, undead, hexes and curses, bard- song magic, fighting, rogue stuff.

(Just for fun
psychic types:
a telepathy mind control guy, a telekinetic force manipulation guy, a precog divination guy, a body control buff up guy.

And if you have a beef with your DMs deciding the powerful rage ability only coming from barbaric cultures, that is their call. Barbs got plenty of skill points to pay for literacy and no one forced you to put a low score into Int.

That is just it though. It doesn't matter what you do with your skill points or what other classes you take. You could be a cleric of the god of knowledge and decide to pick up one level of barbarian and the whole notion of the character shifts around, based entirely on the fluff. Suppose you were only looking for the +10 speed and the +1 BAB. frankthedm, you dont mind having a class in PHBI that is going to be a up to the DM's call kind of class?

 

[Gloombunny]

I like generic classes, but I don't want the warlock to be one. I mean, it's called warlock. The very name denotes a certain amount of, if not outright evil, at least a "dark" flavor, and strongly suggests some sort of consorting with demons. And I really like the idea of having a class based on that concept, and I mean a fully-fledged class, not one tucked away in some supplement and never getting additional support. It's a strong and long-historied fantasy archetype.

I think both generic and non-generic classes have their place. While genericness has its definite advantages, when you devote a class to a certain fluff theme, you can make the rules actually support that fluff in interesting ways. What really bugs me is classes that purport to be generic but really aren't, like the 3e cleric, and classes that really are pretty generic but have a specific fluff tacked onto them anyway, like the 3e barbarian. That's a design problem that 3e fell victim to many times. Here's hoping that 4e design keeps a clear idea of what concept each class is meant to embody - either a fluff concept or a rules concept, but not both, ideally.