Which Warlocks Want We?

[Kaodi]

I think it is a strength of the 4e warlock that it is a broader class than the 3e version. In some ways it might be the case that the 3.X warlock captured things the 4E one dd not though. I never had any experience with the Essentials version though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mechanically, I'd like a 3e warlock. I like the idea of a magic-user with just a pile of powers they can use all the time, for any reason, in any context, all day long. Only at-wills! Not a "striker" (a very narmed choice).

I'd like to steal the curse boons from 4e, though, and the various pacts. IMO, the idea of a warlock as the "mage granted magic from an outside source" is great, and maybe should even overlap/pervert cleric mechancis in a few ways. Warlocks are great places to locate powerful summoning, charms, and illusions, too.

I'd personally make warlocks really solid at the "social" pillar: suave, dark, sophisticated, persuasive, with magic to manipulate those they interact with.

That's kind of a bigger change than maybe first-grok 5e can handle, but I'm not interested in a middling striker that works mostly just like every other character but with magic pew pew lazers/knives/whatever. I do like the idea of basically the warlock as an "anti-cleric," forming pacts with supernatural beings, and twisting the trust and gentility of the clerics into a manipulative, selfish kind of persuasion.

 

[steeldragons]

I voted "infrenal", "Dark(?)" and essentials infernal hexblade.

I do not use warlocks in my game world, but the very concept of a "pact" with some greater power to "give" you power in exchange for...something...at some point...while being a very valid fantasy archetype (from Faust on down), seems to demand a "dark/evil" power/outlook of desperation.

The idea that entities willing to say, "oh, ok, here's some power in exchange for something" are NOT "evil" or after some ulterior motive just doesn't mesh with me/my sensibilities.

Naturally, this is coming from someone who uses and likes 9=point alignment in their games...so I don't expect things will develop that way in game to allow for "shiny happy warlocks holding pacts" heroic characters.

But would be nice if Warlocks gave Assassins some company in the "must be evil" or at least "not good" camp. Even someone who is not "evil" entering into a pact with some dark power must be a) very desperate and/or b) knowing that they are taking their soul into someone else's hands and/or c) have the "questionable" ethics or morals to stoop to such a grab for power/feel it is an acceptable course of action.

Since, however, 5e is likely to have Alignment be a totally optional "added level" of play, I do not expect to see this.
--SD

 

[ferratus]

I like my warlocks to be a mix of infernal (the core flavour), vestige (binding demons or spirts to yourself) and dark (offer hit points from you and your companions to your soul devouring master). If you add all three of these pact abilities into one class, then make him the best summoner, you'd have my perfect warlock.

Fey warlocks cover too much ground already covered by druids and wizards IMO, and Star Pact Warlocks don't make much sense because Lovecraftian mad elder gods don't make pacts.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I was never a DDI subscriber, so I apologise for missing out warlock pacts that were only in them

One of the things that I liked about the 4e hexblade warlock was the idea that amongst tribes of orcs it was quite easy for leaders to enter into infernal pacts for power now, and end up as infernal hexblades - it felt like quite a natural choice for evil humanoids to fall into.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

I do not use warlocks in my game world, but the very concept of a "pact" with some greater power to "give" you power in exchange for...something...at some point...while being a very valid fantasy archetype (from Faust on down), seems to demand a "dark/evil" power/outlook of desperation.

Interestingly the 4e essentials warlock described it as using a pact to trick power from the infernal beings - so not a supplicant to a power giver, but a potentially someone grey who has found a legal trick to wrest power from the other side and turn it to his causes.

Cheers

 

[LostSoul]

I want a warlock that does more than just pay lip service to the idea that you forged a pact with some entity for power.

 

[Yora]

Have all the warlocks!!!

Except 3rd Ed.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm honestly not very fond of any current incarnations of Warlocks.

IMO, the Warlock should be distinctly different from the Mage and the Sorcerer.
Have it's own Spell List, but have the option to pull from the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list.
Have a special selection of familiars(mostly demonic/devlish/ect...)
Do something that the Wizard and Sorcerer do not do.

Warlocks function differently from other casters and should because of the nature of their magic, it's EVIL, they're EVIL(though I don't favor mandatory alignments for classes). Warlock magic is subtle but powerful. Damage over time effects, drain life, steal levels, everything a Warlock does is about making themselves better at the expense of others.

If you want an example of my "idea" Warlock, I'll sadly have to refer you to WoW and the design of Affliction. It is basically everything I like in the concept of Warlocks.

 

[steeldragons]

Interestingly the 4e essentials warlock described it as using a pact to trick power from the infernal beings - so not a supplicant to a power giver, but a potentially someone grey who has found a legal trick to wrest power from the other side and turn it to his causes.

Cheers

Well...that's all well and good, that they make it palatable like that...but does that speak to the "archetype" of a fantasy "warlock"? I have no problem with them being "grey"...but they will not/should not expect to always be so...cuz some infernal is holding their "soul" as collateral.

A mortal ought not be able to "out deal/find a loophole" with a "devil". This is what devils DO. Even when it looks like its to your advantage, it's still to theirs...ultimately...somehow.

An explanation with no "in-game" consequence is of no use to anyone.

Well, other than the folks who have this "cake and eat it too/entitled" mentality...which I feel D&D should not be condoning or enforcing. Certainly not "defining" within a class.

yes. It's a game. Yes. It's about "fun". If you want power in this fashion/to play a warlock...then have fun with it...with the obvious/necessary "pay back" at some point. Devil's don't make "losing" propositions (in the sense that a fantasy/mythical construct creature, like a devil, "does" anything).

I want a warlock that does more than just pay lip service to the idea that you forged a pact with some entity for power.

Yeah, see...this.

Entering into such a "pact" shouldn't just be "I wanna be a warlock and get these powers and in-game fun stuff...consequences?! Wut's is 'consequences'?"

Again, my take on them...and why I do not use/have them [as PCs] in my games.

--SD