What do you think of the Warlock article?

[Rechan]

It's inevitable. Polls always pop up for these things. Let's get it out of the way.

 

[Cadfan]

I like the article.

I'm sad that it didn't have more crunch. I want to know what it is that makes the warlock mechanically different from the wizard.

But for what the article did, it was a good article and I'm enthused about the warlock.

 

[SPECTRE666]

Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie!!!!!! Waiting for May 2008!!!!

 

[drothgery]

I want to see more before rendering a final opinion, and there were some grounds for hope, but I'm definitely in the camp that says that if you're eliminating the exclusively Good class and adding a fiendish-flavored race, then you shouldn't be adding any exclusively Evil classes and should be adding a celestial-flavored race.

 

[Wormwood]

...if you're eliminating the exclusively Good class and adding a fiendish-flavored race, then you shouldn't be adding any exclusively Evil classes and should be adding a celestial-flavored race.

Luckily, there is no evidence at all that any of the 4e classes are exclusively evil.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Well, there's nothing in the article to say that the 4e Warlock is exclusively evil. It's possible that the alignment may depend on the pact source chosen - Evil for the infernal pact, Neutral for shadow, Good(?) for wild. Alternatively, it could be Lawful for infernal, Neutral for shadow, & Chaotic for wild - or even no required alignment/source pairing at all (Chaotic Good character holding a pact with devils? Perhaps challenging to roleplay, but if the player can handle it, why not?). Point is, we just don't really know yet.

I do think it's pretty clear that the planar sources of the pacts are probably Hades for the infernal, Shadowfell for shadow, & Feywild for wild, & that sounds a more flavorful to me than the 3.5e assumed source + 1 option mentioned in the class text.

 

[hazel monday]

Don't care much either way. Wasn't impressed or outraged.

 

[Paraxis]

I dislike the flavor of the warlock.

The article makes it seem like it was included because the Tiefling was in as a race. By that logic where is Spellblade for Elves, or Hammerlord for Dwarfs. Tiefling should have been a template that was added to a race so that dwarves and such could have dark ancestors.

On the warlock its just seems like pandering to junior high kids, the whole power of sending someone to hell for a round and coming back sounds like one of the most childlike things to come down from WoTC in a long while.

The whole points of light concept is about being a force of light against the darkness not being the darkness. This is a great NPC class for bad guys and would have liked it in the DMG as such but taking up space in the PHB away from much better class options is such a waste.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I like Rangers and Fighters myself, but the Warlock is looking very cool and tempting...

 

[Szatany]

I was surprised to see ties to feral and shadow warlocks (I'm not disliking it, I'm on the fence right now), but otherwise it looks like D&D warlocks will have similar feel to WoW warlocks, which is heartwarming.