Which Warlocks Want We?

[LostSoul]

One could argue the same thing with clerics. What do they have to do to get their spells? Not much. The same is true for many other such rules. This is the sort of thing that D&D never codifies and just leaves to the people at the table (for better or for worse).

Yup. Pre-4E does require certain behaviours for clerics (and paladins, druids, monks, etc.), but I never really found it that interesting.

 

[Spatula]

I never saw much point to the 3e warlock, myself, and as a result I was pretty skeptical of it being included as a "core" class in 4e. But I have to say that the 4e warlock and its pacts really injected a lot of character (and plot-hooks for the DM) into the concept. A lot like Pathfinder did with the sorcerer. My only real complaints are the whole dual-attack-stat thing and that each pact is basically its own subclass.

I'm a bit "meh" on the hexblades. They seem like fine classes, but for whatever reason (maybe the lack of the active curse mechanic), they don't seem as sinister or interesting to me.

 

[Oni]

I'm not really sure how to vote. Flavor-wise I think the 4e warlocks were amazing, and I thought the idea of the curse mechanic and the boons was very cool, but I personally found the execution to be underwhelming, it just seemed like they should have had a greater impact on the class overall. Mechanically I though the 3e class was more interesting, though partially I would attribute that to the fact that is more mechanically unique relative to the other classes of that particular edition than the 4e version. I did like the kind of like the powers that allowed them to alter their eldritch blast in different ways, and some of the other class abilities were cool and unique. However I think it could use a bit of an overhaul, I'd really like something that combined the best of both.

 

[Jiggawatts]

None.

I don't want a Warlock class in the PHB. In a supplement or PHB2 down the road, sure, fine, whatever, but not in the original.

 

[Oni]

None.

I don't want a Warlock class in the PHB. In a supplement or PHB2 down the road, sure, fine, whatever, but not in the original.

Why not?

 

[FireLance]

You know, I had somehow obtained the impression that (at least for the orginal 4e PH warlock) some portion of the life energy of those who died under his curse went to his patron, and that is what the patron gets out of the pact.

Most warlocks probably don't think too much about what devils, archfey, star entities or dark powers do with all that life energy.

 

[Minigiant]

You know, I had somehow obtained the impression that (at least for the orginal 4e PH warlock) some portion of the life energy of those who died under his curse went to his patron, and that is what the patron gets out of the pact.

Most warlocks probably don't think too much about what devils, archfey, star entities or dark powers do with all that life energy.

Au contraire, I think a good 1/3 of warlocks do think about what their patron will do with the life force they receive from them. Some even know.

And that's how Bill's Straightjacket and Wall Padding Emporium stays in business.

 

[Endur]

I like the Secret Witch (from early Dragon, also in Best of Dragon vol. 1).

I also like the Star-Powered Mage from Arduin Grimoire.

For the choices presented in the poll, I liked the 3e warlock best. That said, I thought that 4e added great flavor with the Star, Dark, Fey, Infernal pacts.

 

[Kingreaper]

She doesn't have to do anything. Which is the problem. The "bargain" is one-sided. There is no catch; she doesn't actually have to be merciful.

I wouldn't mind pacts with good beings if there was a catch.

If Pelor knows who her enemies are (others drow and underdark nasties) and wants those creatures defeated, why would he not make a pact with her? He knows what she'll do with his power; and it's something that he wants done. Being Neutral Good means looking out for good above all, not having to fuss too much over ensuring that the means are purely ethical.

And it gives him some leverage, because while he can't easily force her hand, he has a certain position of authority over someone pacted to him; he can likely locate her, and send someone to punish her, if he feels the need.

I far prefer the 4e system where the god/pact granter can send someone to deal with you, empower your enemies, etc. to the older system where they just take the power right back. It means that you have to be someone the pact granter trusted, for whatever reason, to further their goals.

 

[LostSoul]

I far prefer the 4e system where the god/pact granter can send someone to deal with you, empower your enemies, etc. to the older system where they just take the power right back. It means that you have to be someone the pact granter trusted, for whatever reason, to further their goals.

That would be the catch. In order for the player to make informed decisions, the player needs to know (or at least have some kind of idea) what the consequences of the PC's actions will be.

I think the best place to put that information is in the class itself.