Warlocks

[Grimmjow]

My favorite class in 4e was the warlock. It was powerful and had a lot of opportunity for roll playing. My hopes that it will be this way in DDN. They have already said that warlock will be a class in the core books, i just hope that it will be something close to the way it was in 4e.

I thought that the pact boons were a good idea, as it gave each warlock something different mechanically and a different RP hook for each. I do feel that the pact should influence eldritch blast though, seeing has how the blast is the raw power of your pact. A few eldritch blast should be different from the dark pact one.

I don't think they should make hexblade and binder into a different class but just as a different set of rules. (Which i guess it kinda was already). But my big thing was that they should have had all the pacts available for all the warlock classes. Regular warlocks should be able to be gloom pact while hex blades and binders should be able to be dark.

I also think it would be cool that if at the finial level for the warlock they would be able to transform into a monster related to their pact. So a star pact warlock would turn into an aberrant monster, while a dark pact turned into a demon, and an infernal pact would become a devil. I know tho sounds like the WoW warlocks but that never accrued to me until my friend started gagging when i told him about this. And even if it is kinda like WoW i still think it would be a fun idea, and a great power.

 

[Oni]

I like warlocks, they're cool, they can stay.

I thought a lot of the 4e fluff was really cool for them. I greatly dislike the 4e power system, but that was something every class had, it wasn't what really made the warlock. I thought the pacts were very cool, and curses should have been, but both of those things needed to be expanded on and made more central to the class. Mechanically I liked some of what they did with the 3.5 version, but mostly I think they need look at the fluff, the pacts and what made each of them unique (and the potential drawbacks of them), and curses, and just gut everything mechanically and go back to the drawing board about how they function.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Warlocks are cool. They have fluff very different from wizards.

But they would need mechanics that define them, and not just as a wizard theme.

So - aside from the "pact", which could be practically anything rules-wise - what makes the warlock? How does he do what he does, to make him feel like a proper warlock?

 

[gweinel]

I vote for warlocks too. Although i don't like much 4e i find them as the best -fluff wise - class of the edition. The pact thing offers so many role playing and plot possibilities!

 

[Dausuul]

But they would need mechanics that define them, and not just as a wizard theme.

So - aside from the "pact", which could be practically anything rules-wise - what makes the warlock? How does he do what he does, to make him feel like a proper warlock?

Here's a thought, adapting the "pact boon" mechanic to become the core of the class instead of a minor add-on: The warlock's magic is fueled by death. Ordinarily, a warlock has just a couple of powers, mostly debuffs and fairly subtle effects. But each time a creature dies nearby, the warlock's power level kicks up a notch and stronger options become available. A fully powered-up warlock has an array of devastating, and often quite flashy, abilities.

 

[fuindordm]

I agree, the 4E version of the warlock was one of the best things about the edition.

However, I don't think the game needs both the warlock and the sorcerer in core. I'd prefer the warlock.

 

[Gold Roger]

I don't like the warlock, because he takes something from a story perspective every class should be able to do. I don't want gaining power through pacts with dark powers be represented by a class.

For one, if a warrior makes a demonic pact, he doesn't throw eldritch blasts around. He wields a cursed blade and gains an evil eye that stares right into his opponents heart.

If average Joe makes an infernal pact, he's screwed and propably a villain. He's not Joe the level one warlock, who goes adventuring with Bob the cleric and never has to worry about the devils collecting on him. And all the while his pact powers gain power, without new and more horrible deals?

I'm perfectly fine with PC's making dark pacts for power in game, but I'll tell the player he's screwing over his PC. I'm perfectly fine with PC's having done so in their background. "As aprentice your mage had no talent and perspective, so he got it from a devil? Awesome, you want a screwed PC." (some do)

But to me that's no class.

Mechanically the warlock is fine. And as long as I can keep the warlock class, as warlock class out of my game, others can play them as much as they want.

But I'm not fond of them. Imo they don't have priority.

 

[Oni]

I don't like the warlock, because he takes something from a story perspective every class should be able to do. I don't want gaining power through pacts with dark powers be represented by a class.

For one, if a warrior makes a demonic pact, he doesn't throw eldritch blasts around. He wields a cursed blade and gains an evil eye that stares right into his opponents heart.

If average Joe makes an infernal pact, he's screwed and propably a villain. He's not Joe the level one warlock, who goes adventuring with Bob the cleric and never has to worry about the devils collecting on him. And all the while his pact powers gain power, without new and more horrible deals?

I'm perfectly fine with PC's making dark pacts for power in game, but I'll tell the player he's screwing over his PC. I'm perfectly fine with PC's having done so in their background. "As aprentice your mage had no talent and perspective, so he got it from a devil? Awesome, you want a screwed PC." (some do)

But to me that's no class.

Mechanically the warlock is fine. And as long as I can keep the warlock class, as warlock class out of my game, others can play them as much as they want.

But I'm not fond of them. Imo they don't have priority.

I've never pictured a warlock as just any old schmoe who makes a dark deal. Warlocks are people that have figured out how to do it without getting completely screwed over, or learned very quickly after the fact. There must be something of a methodology to it, that's why it's a class. It still leaves room for what you're talking about without having to remove the class.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's a thought, adapting the "pact boon" mechanic to become the core of the class instead of a minor add-on: The warlock's magic is fueled by death. Ordinarily, a warlock has just a couple of powers, mostly debuffs and fairly subtle effects. But each time a creature dies nearby, the warlock's power level kicks up a notch and stronger options become available. A fully powered-up warlock has an array of devastating, and often quite flashy, abilities.

The curse, eldritch blast, and the pact boon should center stage with a warlock.

In fact the "pact boon" should be a full brown alternate form.

The warlock curses a foe and when the curse relases the some of the foe's life force, it is physically absorbed by the warlock, transforming him or her into...

a steel-hard, flying, horned infernal

a teleporting, blinding, awesome fey

a gliding beast hidden within the harsh lights and black shadows

 

[drothgery]

However, I don't think the game needs both the warlock and the sorcerer in core. I'd prefer the warlock.

I hate to harken back to 2e-isms on this, but I don't really think something like the warlock should be in the core (flavor-wise). They're fine in a supplement, but characters who gain their powers by making pacts with infernal powers or entities to terrible to comprehend probably shouldn't be in the initial players' book, I think.