Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Warlocks: Goodbye Rogues, we hardly knew you
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 5995957" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>Five guys sitting around a table is never going to accurately determine how much a power or ability steps on the toes of a class. </p><p>On paper, going ethereal does seem like it steps on the rogue's ability to open locks. But in play when the warlock is the only one that can pass through the sealed door, the rogue seems pretty useful. When the party encounters a locked chest, the rogue seems pretty useful. </p><p>Plus, there's not enough room for every classs to be a unique butterfly with no overlap. The fighter is going to have some fighty overlap with the paladin and ranger (to say nothing of the war domain cleric). So having a potential stealth overlap between the rogue and the warlock is not inherently egregious. </p><p></p><p>And, in case you hadn't noticesd, playtests tend to start with extremes. Look at the high hp and frequent occurrence of Advantage/Disadvantage in the first playtest. And the low hp now. They're testing the limits to see how far they can go and where the comfortable middle is. That is NOT something that can be done with a committee of five or ten or twenty or even a hundred. </p><p>Warlocks should be dark and shadowy and have elements of the rogue. The question is how far can they toe into rogue territory without devaluing the rogue. </p><p>Elements of the playtest are not meant to be perfect and are <em>purposely imperfect</em> to gauge how they work and feel. Because if it was "close enough" it would be ignored and people would focus on minutia. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Furthermore, no single power of a class is a core mechanic. A core mechanic is something like initiative or surprise or advantage or hitting. Testing if saving throws and contests work as intended is a thousand times more important than any one power, or even all the powers in a single class. You can remove a power, you can errata a power, you can even ban a class. But if you effed-up how initiative works the game is in trouble.</p><p></p><p>Even just for classes, powers aren't that important. Again, it is a 5-minute fix at the most. Because they're independent and separate; you can change a power without having to change anything else in the game. </p><p></p><p>What we should be testing for the warlock - what its actual core mechanics are - is the pact boons/ favours mechanic. </p><p>Does that work? Does it function mechanically or is it too confusing and unwieldy. Do warlocks gain enough powers or too many? Should pact boons and lesser invocations be separate or does tying them to the same recharge work. Is two favours enough or should there be more? Should they be tied to level? That's the basics. </p><p>That's what needs to be tested.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 5995957, member: 37579"] Five guys sitting around a table is never going to accurately determine how much a power or ability steps on the toes of a class. On paper, going ethereal does seem like it steps on the rogue's ability to open locks. But in play when the warlock is the only one that can pass through the sealed door, the rogue seems pretty useful. When the party encounters a locked chest, the rogue seems pretty useful. Plus, there's not enough room for every classs to be a unique butterfly with no overlap. The fighter is going to have some fighty overlap with the paladin and ranger (to say nothing of the war domain cleric). So having a potential stealth overlap between the rogue and the warlock is not inherently egregious. And, in case you hadn't noticesd, playtests tend to start with extremes. Look at the high hp and frequent occurrence of Advantage/Disadvantage in the first playtest. And the low hp now. They're testing the limits to see how far they can go and where the comfortable middle is. That is NOT something that can be done with a committee of five or ten or twenty or even a hundred. Warlocks should be dark and shadowy and have elements of the rogue. The question is how far can they toe into rogue territory without devaluing the rogue. Elements of the playtest are not meant to be perfect and are [I]purposely imperfect[/I] to gauge how they work and feel. Because if it was "close enough" it would be ignored and people would focus on minutia. Furthermore, no single power of a class is a core mechanic. A core mechanic is something like initiative or surprise or advantage or hitting. Testing if saving throws and contests work as intended is a thousand times more important than any one power, or even all the powers in a single class. You can remove a power, you can errata a power, you can even ban a class. But if you effed-up how initiative works the game is in trouble. Even just for classes, powers aren't that important. Again, it is a 5-minute fix at the most. Because they're independent and separate; you can change a power without having to change anything else in the game. What we should be testing for the warlock - what its actual core mechanics are - is the pact boons/ favours mechanic. Does that work? Does it function mechanically or is it too confusing and unwieldy. Do warlocks gain enough powers or too many? Should pact boons and lesser invocations be separate or does tying them to the same recharge work. Is two favours enough or should there be more? Should they be tied to level? That's the basics. That's what needs to be tested. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Warlocks: Goodbye Rogues, we hardly knew you
Top