Wizards hate warlocks

I love the flavour, first sorceror that didn't feel blandish.

I like the unique gish flavour of the DS and that other sorcerors will have different flavours. I also like that the magic in a sorceror is alive, it has instincts, but its not seperate from you.

I love the design of the warlock, the mechanics are perfect, except they should use Charisma. Flavour both the way they did pact boons and the reality hacking, but it needs to connect better. In the past warlocks that whole patron pact thing took front and centre in the Fluff, but now its almost a side effect of reality hacking and the search for forbidden secrets. I'd reverse that, make Pact primary and its only throught the pact that the warlock can understand these forbidden reality hacking secrets, which mortal minds can understand. It'd also help explain why average wizards hate Warlocks, not only is it short cut to power, but they comprenand things most wizards can't for all thier book knowledge. Of course multiclass,wizards/warlock are an exception, amoung others.

One thing I really like is that evil wizards hunt,sorcerors, particularly inexperinced ones for experimentation and harvesting the way they would any other magical creature, so the fear could go both ways, sorcerors who have had bad experinces as a lab monkeys would loath most wizards until proven innocent.

Still hall this fluff is dumpable with easy, only the sorcerors mutations and that Warlocks use intelligence instead of charisma anchor the newer fluff to the characters and miniumally at that.

I like have fluff and I while I get those that prefer miniumal fluff as they have thier own,plans, for me a fluffless pile of mechanics is boring and I'd lost interest quickly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Like Tovec, I'm not real sold on the sorceror concept as presented. To me, the guiding light of sorceror design should be this line:

"Yes, I am a sorceror--and this magic is in my bones, not cribbed off of 'Magic for Dummies.' And I can keep casting the same friggin' spell at you until you roll over and die."

Sorcery should feel absolutely innate, something you don't have to think about; you just do it. In fact, I think it might be worth switching the sorceror and warlock mechanics. Sorcerors should get the at-will abilities with no bookkeeping, and warlocks should be the ones who struggle against the demon within.
 
Last edited:

Wizard: "I am sitting here for 20 years devouring arcane tomes and books, learning all the infinite intricacies of the Art and you come around the corner, make some funky deal with some planar hoochycoochy and get spells for free. Get off my lawn you cheap *******!"


"And you over there, just because the sun and the moon did align up well when you were born you think you can go around and swoosh around with your fiery eyes, kicking out fireball after fireball? Bugger off before I get my wand of rectal accuracy!"


You know, I can relate to that quite well.
 


Wizard: "I am sitting here for 20 years devouring arcane tomes and books, learning all the infinite intricacies of the Art and you come around the corner, make some funky deal with some planar hoochycoochy and get spells for free. Get off my lawn you cheap *******!"


"And you over there, just because the sun and the moon did align up well when you were born you think you can go around and swoosh around with your fiery eyes, kicking out fireball after fireball? Bugger off before I get my wand of rectal accuracy!"


You know, I can relate to that quite well.

Right, but that is the part I and the article seem to greatly differ on. Which of these is attributed to Sorcerer and which to Warlock?
Personally the first seems warlocky to me and the second sorcery. What do you think?

Also, I agree with [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]
 


Totally fine with the attitudes presented there. Those are so glaringly obvious assumptions that I find it difficult to believe there's any room for conversation on the matter. Still, I'm good with having it spelled out.

As for the power sources, wizard and warlock are pretty dead on, too. I'll admit to misgivings about the warlock being arcane (the 1e witch was basically divine), but not going to lose any sleep over that.

Giving the sorcerer a second soul is pretty lame, though. There has to be a better bit of fluff they could use. If you want something related to the soul, I'd say the sorcerer's soul "bleeds" into the astral, which gives him access to raw magic.
 

A great example for me would be johnny blaze in the ghostrider movies (I haven't read the comics) where his dad is dying and he makes a deal to save him. Only the devil screws him in the end, years later johnny gets the power of the ghostrider and wreaks vengeance on evil people. He can use that power to whatever ends he wants, but he is always going to be cursed.
Johnny Blaze is an angel. The Angel of Vengeance. Yes, I was shocked too. No, it doesn't fit the character at all. And yes, the person who made that script should die in a fire of vengeance.
 

Right, but that is the part I and the article seem to greatly differ on. Which of these is attributed to Sorcerer and which to Warlock?
Personally the first seems warlocky to me and the second sorcery. What do you think?

Also, I agree with [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]
If you "can call spirits from the vasty deep," you're a sorcerer. ;) Shakespear was actually on the RL defiition of 'Sorcerer,' when he had Owen Glendower make that claim. A sorcerer is someone who gains supernatural power from calling upon or commanding spirits. That's closer to the D&D Warlock than the Sorcerer, but neither really quite does it justice, IMHO. I actually re-did the 3.0 Sorcerer in that vein a long while back...

Anyway, D&D has never scrupled much over RL definitions, and I don't expect it to start now.
 


Remove ads

Top