So, I just read on another website that warlocks are definitely going to be in 4e. I don't know how others feel about this choice, but I for one can't stand it, and I'm dismayed about the decision to include what I believe to be a broken class (i.e., the warlock's ability to use eldritch blast).
As with most of the 4th Ed. hysteria, I say "wait and see." Most classes are going to get at-will abilities, I hear: clerics have at-will healing, wizards have at-will boom magic, fighters can swing weapons at will (okay, so that's already in the game). At any rate, the warlock's at-will abilities will fit better into that kind of system, so I imagine that their integration will go quite well.
For the record, I'm a big fan of 3.5 warlocks, too, so I actually felt a thrill of joy when I heard that they're going to be included in 3.5. However, since I'd already heard that wizards have some at-will boom magic, I'm not sure what the difference between warlocks and wizards will be in the new system.
I suppose people at the advent of 3.0 were saying, "I'm not sure what the difference between wizards and sorcerers will be in the new system", too, so then as now: let's wait and see.
Thanks,
Ron
|
I tried like crazy not to post this...
Here is the link for those interested.
So yeah, high fantasy now means warlocks and tieflings in a new cosmology that makes the planes (especially those pesky elemental ones) a fun place to adventure!
...this is why I am opposed to 4e and the corporate *#(&@#%$^ that are trying to sell it to me as a necassary evolution of the game. I call BS. It's about changing things so much that (i) fresh new young blood gets excitied and (ii) old timers have to buy everything from the Core 3 to your favorite settings all over again.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
You know, I'll be honest, the idea of making warlocks 'core' seems a little odd to me, tieflings even more so. It cheapens the uniqueness of being a fiend-blooded and similarly lessens the impact of manifesting eldritch powers.
By making something 'core,' (i.e. in the PHB) you are making it 'common,' IMO. Whereas, in 3.5, a DM might say that there are only a couple dozen warlocks in the entire world and thus their powers are unique and largely unknown, when they become a basic class the population density is perceived to increase (whether or not it actually does).
Think about it. Most DMs will allow fighters, wizards, and rangers without batting an eye. They're common. They're basic. They're what most adventurers would legitimately turn out to be. On the contrary, warlocks and favored souls are a little more unique. Not every major city is necessarily going to have a warlock or favored soul floating around in it. They're rare (or they should be) and thus the idea of making one as a PC seems more legitimate. After all, PCs become heroes and do great things, so why wouldn't this unique person with these special powers seek destiny?
Now, having said all that, I have an easy fix to tieflings and warlocks being 'core' in 4e: Don't make them common. Treat them like you would in 3.5. If 3 of your players come up and say "We want to be tieflings!" say "Tieflings aren't that common, why are there three of you banding together? Work it out and get back to me." The same goes for warlocks. That should make the 'outrage' a little easier to bear. It will for me, anyway.
(laughing and pointing) Classes. Hehe.
You know, I'll be honest, the idea of making warlocks 'core' seems a little odd to me, tieflings even more so. It cheapens the uniqueness of being a fiend-blooded and similarly lessens the impact of manifesting eldritch powers.
By making something 'core,' (i.e. in the PHB) you are making it 'common,' IMO. Whereas, in 3.5, a DM might say that there are only a couple dozen warlocks in the entire world and thus their powers are unique and largely unknown, when they become a basic class the population density is perceived to increase (whether or not it actually does).
Think about it. Most DMs will allow fighters, wizards, and rangers without batting an eye. They're common. They're basic. They're what most adventurers would legitimately turn out to be. On the contrary, warlocks and favored souls are a little more unique. Not every major city is necessarily going to have a warlock or favored soul floating around in it. They're rare (or they should be) and thus the idea of making one as a PC seems more legitimate. After all, PCs become heroes and do great things, so why wouldn't this unique person with these special powers seek destiny?
Now, having said all that, I have an easy fix to tieflings and warlocks being 'core' in 4e: Don't make them common. Treat them like you would in 3.5. If 3 of your players come up and say "We want to be tieflings!" say "Tieflings aren't that common, why are there three of you banding together? Work it out and get back to me." The same goes for warlocks. That should make the 'outrage' a little easier to bear. It will for me, anyway.
I'm a big fan of the worlock and the tiefling. But as you stated, when they become a part of the core rules, they change thier special status. But the best part of being a DM, is you can change the rules to fit your own sensabilities and vision. I'm also a fan of the 3rd edition gnome, they finally came into their own, no longer a smart alec cousin of the dwarves. But if they are not in the 4th edition, then I'll just make my own 4th edition gnomes.
Well said fate spinner.
"and he worships Erathis, the goddess of civilization." Chris Perkins
Wow. Goddess of civilization. That's exciting.
"and he worships Erathis, the goddess of civilization." Chris Perkins
Wow. Goddess of civilization. That's exciting.
HA HA! That was my thought exactly when I read that.
You know, its strange, but I keep getting this vibe that somehow some of what is going into 4th edition has been shifted from searching the internet . . . I know, I'm probably biased, but it just seems weird to me that Paizo mentions Asmodeus is a god in Pathfinder . . . boom . . . Asmodeus is the LE poster god of the PH in 4th.
Orcus was the "patron saint" of Necromancer Games, and now "Orcus is sort of our mascot for 4th edition."
Erathis sounds a lot like Erastil . . . I don't know . . . there are other things like this that have been popping up. Maybe its just a John Lennon moment . . . "only so many notes," but it does kind of work on me.
You know, its strange, but I keep getting this vibe that somehow some of what is going into 4th edition has been shifted from searching the internet . . . I know, I'm probably biased, but it just seems weird to me that Paizo mentions Asmodeus is a god in Pathfinder . . . boom . . . Asmodeus is the LE poster god of the PH in 4th.
Orcus was the "patron saint" of Necromancer Games, and now "Orcus is sort of our mascot for 4th edition."
Erathis sounds a lot like Erastil . . . I don't know . . . there are other things like this that have been popping up. Maybe its just a John Lennon moment . . . "only so many notes," but it does kind of work on me.
WotC is in the process of retconning reality so that they invented all that stuff first.
You know, its strange, but I keep getting this vibe that somehow some of what is going into 4th edition has been shifted from searching the internet . . .
I felt like my forums had been hacked when I read that SW SE was using Damage Threshold. I will however concede that the Condition Track is easier to keep up with than using Wound Points...
Back on topic though, the one thing I *do* like about the Warlock is that their invocations basically result in a character who is like a unique being. While a warlock's eldritch blast becomes kind of useless if they do much multiclassing, You can add some interesting flavor to other classes by incorporating a level or two of warlock. i.e. A rogue who can walk on walls, a ninja with surpassing acrobatic skill for their level or a ranger who is simply untrackable.
It's obviously not for everyone, but someone ever wanted to create Marvel or DC style heroes in a D&D world, the warlock abilities would be a good place to start.
And by broken do you mean overpowered?
because warlock are NOT overpowered...
And they may make the warlock focused on single target damage (striker role) and the wizard on AoE and mind-affecting (controller role), so that way each class has it's strenghts and it's place.
Now that the points of Light setting is the default setting I think tieflings and warlocks have more reason to exist...remote regions can babble in demonic magic and rituals without fear of retribution from the authority.
just my 2 cents.
You know, I'll be honest, the idea of making warlocks 'core' seems a little odd to me, tieflings even more so. It cheapens the uniqueness of being a fiend-blooded and similarly lessens the impact of manifesting eldritch powers.
By making something 'core,' (i.e. in the PHB) you are making it 'common,' IMO. Whereas, in 3.5, a DM might say that there are only a couple dozen warlocks in the entire world and thus their powers are unique and largely unknown, when they become a basic class the population density is perceived to increase (whether or not it actually does).
Think about it. Most DMs will allow fighters, wizards, and rangers without batting an eye. They're common. They're basic. They're what most adventurers would legitimately turn out to be. On the contrary, warlocks and favored souls are a little more unique. Not every major city is necessarily going to have a warlock or favored soul floating around in it. They're rare (or they should be) and thus the idea of making one as a PC seems more legitimate. After all, PCs become heroes and do great things, so why wouldn't this unique person with these special powers seek destiny?
Now, having said all that, I have an easy fix to tieflings and warlocks being 'core' in 4e: Don't make them common. Treat them like you would in 3.5. If 3 of your players come up and say "We want to be tieflings!" say "Tieflings aren't that common, why are there three of you banding together? Work it out and get back to me." The same goes for warlocks. That should make the 'outrage' a little easier to bear. It will for me, anyway.
Looking back, I've had the same problem with paladins: they are specially trained holy warriors, and by my thinking should be fairly rare, but having them as a base class "cheapens" and "commonizes" them a bit. I've never gone so far as to adopt the "paladins as a prestige class" rules, but I've thought about it; at any rate, paladins in my campaigns tend to be special and rare. There's nothing keeping you from doing the same to warlocks and tieflings in your campaigns, just as you say.
Thanks,
Ron
|
It's obviously not for everyone, but someone ever wanted to create Marvel or DC style heroes in a D&D world, the warlock abilities would be a good place to start.
Yeah. I play D&D precisely because I am not a fan of superheroes. I am a fan of Sword of Sorcery. Its a clear push away from sword and sorcery.
(laughing and pointing) Classes. Hehe.
Yes isn't a shame that some of us have class? Others seem fine doing without ;P