• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

What exactly is a D&D Warlock?

zhouluyi

First Post
[MENTION=95211]mudlock[/MENTION] and [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION], actually Drow is the proper name of the race, the HotFL says in the description:
"The drow (referred as "dark elves" by the mortal races) ...", so we can see that they are indeed dark elves, and Drow are just the name of its race. The same is true with Eladrin (actually both are sister races).

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION], 'encapetado' seem like someone possessed, and the Tiefling literally became like devils to the point of having infernal blood and passing it on the generations, so I really like Diabolizado (transformed into devil).

About the Escaldo/Skald, I haven't had the time to read Heroes of Feywild yet after I read its description I will be able to make a better decision. Actually there is good chance that I will pass on the book completely due to it ditching the Essential style of play (I really like it).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Klaus

First Post
[MENTION=95211]mudlock[/MENTION] and [MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION], actually Drow is the proper name of the race, the HotFL says in the description:
"The drow (referred as "dark elves" by the mortal races) ...", so we can see that they are indeed dark elves, and Drow are just the name of its race. The same is true with Eladrin (actually both are sister races).

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION], 'encapetado' seem like someone possessed, and the Tiefling literally became like devils to the point of having infernal blood and passing it on the generations, so I really like Diabolizado (transformed into devil).

About the Escaldo/Skald, I haven't had the time to read Heroes of Feywild yet after I read its description I will be able to make a better decision. Actually there is good chance that I will pass on the book completely due to it ditching the Essential style of play (I really like it).
You'd be surprised.

The skald uses a "leader aura" and his powers alter the aura's effect, much in the same way the knight has a "defender aura", which the berserker also has.

There's no divide between core and Essentials, it's all D&D.
 

zhouluyi

First Post
There's no divide between core and Essentials, it's all D&D.
I don't like just a long list of powers to choose from, after a few level with a lot of powers available to use you became a "power distributing machine", I don't think every class need that much stuff. For a wizard, a cleric, a warlock or a druid its nice (and essentials make it like that), but for classes that are more down to earth like a fighter, a rogue or ranger, features, improvements and increases in current powers are nicer.

Do a knight, a slayer or a thief (or any other martial class for that matter) have any explanation or justification for a daily power? Do they need 200 diferent ways of striking an enemy at every turn? Take a thief, you use backstab and sneak attack almost exclusively, using a few tricks to place the oponents in position to strike and at every other level improving on how you hit or how much damage you make, do you really need anything else?

Even the mage has level with just improvements to features, and they make sense, after all you don't just get new powers with experience, you get better at whatever thing your "profession" is.
 
Last edited:

mudlock

First Post
@mudlock and @Ryujin , actually Drow is the proper name of the race, the HotFL says in the description:
"The drow (referred as "dark elves" by the mortal races) ...", so we can see that they are indeed dark elves, and Drow are just the name of its race. The same is true with Eladrin (actually both are sister races).

That makes as much sense as saying "HotFK says they're called Dragonborn, so that's what they're called!" Which, of course, would be missing the entire point of the whole thread.

(And, oh gee, thanks for explaining to me that drow are dark elves; I really didn't know that%)

You look through the etymology and try to find an equivalent. "Dragon" and "born" are easy. But Drow does--actually--have something that it's derived from, which could perhaps suggest a translation.
 

zhouluyi

First Post
[MENTION=95211]mudlock[/MENTION], actually this is the citation in Wikipedia:
The word "drow" is from the Orcadian and Shetlandic dialects of Scots,[5] an alternative form of "trow" (both of which come from the Nordic dökkálfar),[6] which is a cognate for "troll". The Oxford English Dictionary gives no entry for "drow", but two of the citations under "trow" name it as an alternative form of the word. Trow/drow was used to refer to a wide variety of evil sprites. Except for the basic concept of "dark elves", everything else about the Dungeons & Dragon drow was invented by Gary Gygax
This is pretty much diferent than Dragonborn (born from a dragon), or Tiefling (related to the devil), or even Halfling (people with half normal size). If you take the previous words I mentioned, you have a descritive of the race in the word. I don't just look at the meaning of the word, I look at how it fits the D&D world. Warlock for example, originaly it meant pact-breaker, in modern times it became a male wizard, sometimes associated with the devil, my translation of Pact-maker makes more sense than the original pact-breaker meaning, even thought its the exact opposite. Or even the Cavalier, originally they were an specific small knight order with no connections to the church, how is that related with the D&D cavalier?

Etimology is not everything if it doesn't accuratelly describes what the word means. Now, if I follow your advice and use the etymology for Drow:
Drow is a corruption of Trow, which means "evil sprite". Sprites, pixies, fairies, goblins, elves are all related and almost synonyms. Now, Trow has a cognate in english, Troll, which originally is a type of evil fairy/sprite. I don't really see how using the word Troll (or its portuguese equivalent Trasgo that is horrible and practically unknown) is of any good, or even desirable, considering we do have monsters called Trolls.

Why translate Feywild and not Arkhosia for example? Because the first does describe something, the second is a proper name. Drow and Eladrin are the same thing. We might find some obscure reference to Eladrin refering to wood elves in LotR, but that doesn't mean that I would change the name.

EDIT: Here is the definition of Trow from Britannica, it has nothing at all to do with the D&D drow.
in early Scandinavian folklore, giant, monstrous being, sometimes possessing magic powers. Hostile to men, trolls lived in castles and haunted the surrounding districts after dark. If exposed to sunlight they burst or turned to stone. In later tales trolls often are man-sized or smaller beings similar to dwarfs and elves. They live in mountains, sometimes steal human maidens, and can transform themselves and prophesy. In the Shetland and Orkney islands, Celtic areas once settled by Scandinavians, trolls are called trows and appear as small malign creatures who dwell in mounds or near the sea. In the plays of the Norwegian dramatist Henrik Ibsen, especially Peer Gynt (1867) and The Master Builder (1892), trolls are used as symbols of destructive instincts. Trolls in modern tales for children often live under bridges, menacing travelers and exacting tasks or tolls.

Here is the reasons/filter I use on why translate some term:
1) Does it have a direct counterpart in the target language? Mage, Fighter, Knight, Thief, Cleric, so on...
2) Do the term is an obvious derivative or compound word in the source language? Range(r), Dragon-born, Half-ling, Tief-ling, War-priest, Fey-wild, Shadow-fell...
3) Do the source term is constructed but has problems in pronunciation when used in the target language? Warlock, Hexblade...
4) If it you reached here, the term is a proper name, with no direct counterpart and no big problems with pronunciation, therefore you can safely use the source word. Drow, Eladrin, Pixie, Vryloka, Berserker...
 
Last edited:

Tony Vargas

Legend
Hi there,
First let me explain a bit why I'm questioning this. I live in Brazil and here I translate most of the class and power names to make it easier for my players... previously, Warlock was translated as "Bruxo" (witch in portuguese, the official translation also uses that term), but now with Heroes of the Feywild I have to find a new name to fit the Warlock, as the Witch is the real owner.
While English doesn't have gender inflection like romance languages, it does have some words that have different masculine and feminine forms. Witch is one of those. 'Witch' is the feminine, 'Warlock' is the masculine.

If you wanted, you could contnue to use 'Bruxo' for Warlock, and use 'Bruxa' for Witch - though I'm sure that'd sound a lot stranger than it does in English, where the masculine/feminine connotations of the words are a little old-fashioned, and not woven into grammar.

Anyway, a Warlock is an arcanist who makes pacts with powers beyond mortal ken to gain supernatural power. A Witch, OTOH, is an arcanist who makes pacts with powers beyond mortal ken to gain arcane knowledge. The difference is almost as subtle as the difference in name.

Finally, consider that D&D has been recycling names like crazy since Essentials. The Hunter and Warpriest are two other examples, for instance.

PS: Is it just me or the new Heroes of the Feywild abandoned the new Essentials style (used on HotFL, HotFK and HoS)? Just one big table telling how many powers per level, no class characteristics popping up every other level, and so on?
Partially, it still has a lot of redundant 'flavor text,' and is still using the subclass aproach that Essentials (or AD&D, depending on how you look at it) pioneered.
 

Klaus

First Post
I don't like just a long list of powers to choose from, after a few level with a lot of powers available to use you became a "power distributing machine", I don't think every class need that much stuff. For a wizard, a cleric, a warlock or a druid its nice (and essentials make it like that), but for classes that are more down to earth like a fighter, a rogue or ranger, features, improvements and increases in current powers are nicer.

Do a knight, a slayer or a thief (or any other martial class for that matter) have any explanation or justification for a daily power? Do they need 200 diferent ways of striking an enemy at every turn? Take a thief, you use backstab and sneak attack almost exclusively, using a few tricks to place the oponents in position to strike and at every other level improving on how you hit or how much damage you make, do you really need anything else?

Even the mage has level with just improvements to features, and they make sense, after all you don't just get new powers with experience, you get better at whatever thing your "profession" is.
The core martial classes, to me, have a collection of maneuvers and strikes, whereas the Essentials martial classes have a series of combat styles (the stances).

"But what about encounter/daily powers? How to explain those?" These would be difficult maneuvers that require a very specific set of openings and opportunities to be executed. When you use one of those, you are retroactively deciding that the enemy gave you the perfect opening for that. Which is also a good way to explain "reliable" powers. You went for an opening that just wasn't right.

Now, back to translations to Portuguese:

I think that English terms and names should be translated, but those that English apporpriated from other languages should stay as-is. Even though "tiefling" had its origins in "Teufel" (and teufeling also means "from the depths"), it is its own word, meaning nothing in English except the D&D race. So I prefer to leave it as-in in Portuguese as well.

Plus, that also helps expand the language's vocabulary.
 

zhouluyi

First Post
[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION], the problem with Tiefling is not the from where it is derivative, it is the derivative suffix -ling. It has no meaning in portuguese, but for an english speaker he knows that is is a person with some trait, even if he doesn't know what the original word for the trait means (earth-lings, shadow-lings, tief-lings, half-lings, quick-lings, shamb-lings, gibber-lings, etc)...
 

Warlock translates as oathbreaker* - and I wouldn't dare call my witch-friends warlocks. The word Warlock always has sinister connotations - for a thematic translation I'd therefore use Bruxo for Witch and Diabolista for Warlock (with the note that some Warlocks swear pacts to eldritch horrors rather than demons, and other fools swear pacts with the Fey.) I'd call servant of devils closer than someone turning into one, especially with the nature of the pacts.

*Of course one of Odin's titles/descriptions was the Oathbreaker.
 

zhouluyi

First Post
[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION], about differences on Core and Essentials, here is the final count of powers in Core (ignoring paragon path and epic destiny powers):
Chosen powers 2/3/3/5 (at-will/encounter/daily/utility).

This is the Warpriest final count:
Features 2/5/0/4
Chosen powers 0/0/3/5
Improvements after first level 4
Total 2/5/3/9

This is the Knight final count:
Features 1/1/0/4
Chosen powers 0/0/0/7
Improvements after first level 9 (plus at least 2 extra uses of Power Strike per Encounter)
Total 1/1/0/11

Also, I'm disconsidering any extra improvements (like power strike increased damage, extra uses of channel divinity, etc). As you can see, there is a huge diference between Core and Essentials, even the Warpriest who was closests still is a lot run away.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top