Warlocks

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 always made my players have to do dirty work for their "master". That fixed that problem but i did have the same issue

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.

Ya sort can wait. It should be different from the wizard and the warlock but it still should be a class.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remove ads

Top