Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9859265" data-attributes="member: 6790260">By that logic, we should also just eliminate the Cleric, Paladin, and Druid. Just play a Sorcerer if you don't want to be constantly bothered by things actively trying to ruin your life!Alternatively, we could accept that people have different understandings or appreciations of what the Warlock provides, and that difference actually does matter, even though not everyone wants to engage 1,000,000% full-bore with every possible implication of the original inspirations.Like, I dunno about you, but I'm not super jazzed about being a servant of Big Chuck, even though that's precisely what the inspiration is for the Paladin class. (The Palatine Knights--the "Paladins"--were the most prestigious knights under Charlemagne, and written about extensively centuries after their deaths in the Matter of France.) But I'm pretty hyped to play a knight-errant healer-champion-soldier righting wrongs in the name of one's god, despite that being totally unlike what the Paladins did.I could go on (clerics being scribes, for instance), but I think the point is made: we interact with the class on many levels, and different people want different things out of it. It's perfectly reasonable to want to have just that little air of "bad boy mage", without being superduperultra excited to get screwed over the instant you put a toe out of line. 3e already taught us that with its divine magic rules and how poorly they were received by most players, creating a power that the GM could in theory use but which they functionally never would because doing so would be a gross betrayal of most groups' social contracts--at which point, what is the point if it's never going to be used?And that's precisely why my advice above was about setting the tone before any of the level-ups or power-gains were to be had--moreover, to put the leverage on by giving the player the feeling of being the one getting the "good" end of the deal when the truth is rather the reverse, but the Warlock simply cannot see how their short-sighted pursuit leads to long-term major gains for the forces of evil.And if you wanted classes where they all had serious, enforced built-in flavor, that ship sailed ages ago. The designers of 5e themselves admitted the Fighter was as bland as oatmeal, one of Mr. Mearls' personal regrets about 5e's design. Demanding that only certain classes get chained to their narrative implications, while others aren't....despite them being balanced with the assumption that everyone is getting to use their class as-written consistently? Yeah, not seeing that working well among many...if any...groups.</blockquote>

Verification