What do you think of the Warlock article?

[WhatGravitas]

I'm getting a Elric-Arioch-vibe here, so I'm more than happy! Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Kesh]

I'm quite happy with the direction the warlock is taking for 4e. This will fit in very well with gnolls in my homebrew setting.

 

[ivocaliban]

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.

Someone's reading my mind! And then expressing it so I don't have to...

I chose "true neutral," however, because we're only getting bits and pieces of the warlock. Seems to me there's a spell* in the Spell Compendium (or maybe one of the countless Dragon magazines I've collected in the past month or two) that sends someone to a scary place where they're chased by nasty things. Somewhat similar to the warlock's new ability which I hope against hope is called Go To Hell.

It does seem rather childish and over the top at first glance, but it could work as a higher level power. Not something I'd want to see any warlock doing in the first ten levels, for instance. Seems like something for the "epic" levels to me.


EDIT: Found the spell. Shadow Well, Spell Compendium (p. 186). It's mostly a very dramatic illusion spell that sends someone to a shadowy pocket realm that causes fear and keep someone busy for a few rounds. Okay, so it's not the Hell-of-Being-Cut-to-Pieces the 4e Warlock is getting, but the concept is similar.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I am neutral on the Warlock at this time. I have concerns that some of the powers are pure gamist and won't make any sense at all from an emulationist point of view.

I am decidedly not in favor of the new tiefling 'look.' I preferred the subtler fare of 2e/3e. This tiefling looks so human below the collar, and so weird above, he just looks like he's got a mask on.

 

[Umbran]

True Neutral. I don't feel the article has enough information available for me to judge well.

 

[Pygon]

I've never played a warlock, so I can't really decide one way or the other until I see the rules and try one out.

I'm not sure about the sense of cheesiness of the abilities. A maw that chews you up? ("I... am a mouth!"). A temporary banishment to Hell that tears you up? ("Go visit my mother in law!" "Noooo!")

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

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

Ok Britney

 

[TerraDave]

Of course I want more....that article has dones its job.

But I reserve the right to hate, ban, and or mock the warlock in whole or in part on release.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Rob Heinsoo must be stopped!

 

[Korgoth]

Hmm. Some of the stuff sounds over the top, but the general idea seems to be good enough for a villain class, at least. Even a villain-protagonist (or "anti-hero" if you prefer, I guess).

Too early to tell, but it's interesting. But substantially evil in orientation.