I don't know why you'd want to see warlocks in pathfinder. witches fill that role out rather nicely.
|
PF alchemist is very nearly the mechanical equivilant to 3.5 Warlock
1d6 over several levels as a touch attack, can modify attack at higher progression. Spellcasting/Spell-like abilities. ect.
Thematicaly you have the witch and somewhat the sorcerer (Abyssal, Infernal, ect) and the Diabolist/Demoniac from Book of the Damned 1&2.
+1 re: alchemist comparison.
In the "We Make Pathfinder--Ask Us Anything!" thread on Reddit, they specifically ruled out a Pathfinder warlock. Fortunately, we already have other classes to fill the gap.
Still, no reason you couldn't port it over from 3.5.
Creative Director
|
There's pretty much one reason why we haven't updated the warlock... it, like all the other classes WotC created for 3rd edition that were not in the Player's Handbook, is not open content.
We can do base classes for things like ninja and samurai, since even though those WERE classes that WotC built... they're based on real-world stuff. That's why our samurai and ninja classes are pretty different than WotC's.
Now... the word "warlock" is a real word as well, and one based on real world myth and legend. We could, therefore, make a warlock class, but it would have to be different than the one WotC created. We were VERY close to calling the magus a warlock, in fact, but we decided not to since we didn't want to "overwrite" a class that folks still perhaps wanted to use–even though we cannot legally build a 3.5 version of the WotC Warlock, folks can still use them on their own in their games since the rules are compatible. Had we named the magus the warlock, they'd still work but there would be confusion in home games... "Which warlock are you?" and all that.
Honestly, create an eldritch blast hex, and you can use the witch class to power the thing.
And the magus is a much better class than the warlock. :)
Honestly, create an eldritch blast hex, and you can use the witch class to power the thing.
Direct damage is one of the Witches weaknesses their standard spell list has far less then the Wizard/Sorc. list even with the Elements patron. To give them an "Eldrich Blast" hex they would need to give up someting in return to remain balanced with the Wizard/Sorc.
Even the Evoker can only do 1d4 + 1/2 level 3+int mod/day.
Honestly, create an eldritch blast hex, and you can use the witch class to power the thing.Direct damage is one of the Witches weaknesses their standard spell list has far less then the Wizard/Sorc. list even with the Elements patron. To give them an "Eldrich Blast" hex they would need to give up someting in return to remain balanced with the Wizard/Sorc.
Even the Evoker can only do 1d4 + 1/2 level 3+int mod/day.
It could work as an archetype. Trade off either a few hexes, diminished spellcasting, and/or patron spells.
It could work as an archetype. Trade off either a few hexes, diminished spellcasting, and/or patron spells.
Exactly.
Yes I did like warlock in 3.5 and the third party warlock some folks made for pathfinders I thought was no good...
At this point though they aren't necessary, at least I don't think. Paizo's created much more interesting classes, and they have created classes that are a bit better than warlocks were mechanically. What I could see is like an archetype for Alchemist where Warlocks are actually painted as those ugly gross guys that live in some giant tree trump in the swamp and use like rats to make brews and things. While for combatives they get a hideous ray attack similar to the bombs only it does electrical damage over fire. Their extracts become cast-able as spells and their mutagen is more of their special brew so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is only homebrew, but here is a Warlock that I worked up, if you are interested: Warlock.
Master Arminas
Cool story, Bro!
For pretty much the same reason I hate the magus, the witch, and the mystic theurge, I hate the warlock. Its badly named.
A Warlock is an oath breaker. What about shooting magical rays evokes the idea of an oath breaker? It has no verisimilitude.
Actually, that depends on which definition you use.
1. a fortune-teller, conjuror, or magician2. a man who practises black magic; sorcerer
3. An oathbreaker
4. A male witch, sorcerer, wizard, or demon
It fulfills 1 and 2, so 3.5 Warlock was fine.
Can you explain what you mean by verisimiltude?
""of being true or real" is a likeness or resemblance of the truth, reality or a fact's probability. It comes from Latin verum meaning truth and similis meaning similar."
Doesn't cover yours. Why does an assumed meaning, mean it can't have different context in game?
I mean, magic is fiction in the real world but not assumed in game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best things about the 3.5 warlock was its lack of bookkeeping.
You did not have to track uses per day of its eldritch blast or its invocations.
It was a very easy to use magic-user.
Some powers had 24 durations, which made them easy to use. Others were usable at will, but only 1 manifestation of it could be up at a time. The damage was pretty consistent, but neither overwhelmingly powerful or pitifully weak. Most of the powers were pretty straightforward, but most also had some very interesting uses.
For pretty much the same reason I hate the magus, the witch, and the mystic theurge, I hate the warlock. Its badly named.
A Warlock is an oath breaker. What about shooting magical rays evokes the idea of an oath breaker? It has no verisimilitude.
Now that's just equivocating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It's original definion is 'oath breaker'" is just the etymological fallacy. That hasn't been the primary definition - or even a defintion in regular use in English in general or in fantasy literature in particular - for longer than any of us have even been alive. "Summoner" has roots that mean "to remind", which the summoner doesn't really have anyhthing to do with (aside from reminding people of the 3.5 druid).
Warlock means, for fantasy, "sinister wizard". It means this not becuase of any dictionary definition and especially not based on the word's etymology, but because that's how it's actually used and has been used with regularity across a huge number of speakers and authors for an extended period of time. Some individual properties mold that defintion a little bit; 3.5 was one of them. There's no simple english word for "guy who casts magic spells, but the way he does it is mostly by casting one simple spell with modifications applied to it." They could have made up a term for it, like "ray magus" or "lanceomancer" or something, but instead they took a currently unused fantasy wizard term, fluffed the class a bit to match what it means ("sinister wizard") a little better, and used that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For pretty much the same reason I hate the magus, the witch, and the mystic theurge, I hate the warlock. Its badly named.
A Warlock is an oath breaker. What about shooting magical rays evokes the idea of an oath breaker? It has no verisimilitude.
A warlock is not an "oath breaker"....that is modern wiccan rubbish, making an unattested link to the word waerloga (oath breaker), that does not hold up etymologically.
Warlock is a Scott's word for a male witch, always was, always will be.
It comes from an older scandinavian word vard'lokker that roughly translates as "spirit chanter" or "spirit binder".
So there is a secret Wiccan conspiracy controlling Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries?
A warlock is not an "oath breaker"....that is modern wiccan rubbish,
Not at all.
Modern dictionaries often include current usage, regardless of it's validity.No doubt, we will see future entries where "tight" and "BAD" are listed as synonyms for good ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, this is going *exactly* as planned! /giggles
LOL....your EVIL ;)
What is a Warlock?
By: Niklas Gander
What is a Warlock? I know that this thread has wound down considerably, but in the interest of linguistics, I just wanted to add some potentially useful information on the use of the term "warlock." First of note is that the Modern English definition of the term has nothing to do with traitors or such, and at least according to the 'Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary' is defined:
1 : a man practicing the black arts: sorcerer;
2 : conjurer".Whatever its hypothetical etymology, it is nowadays *not* used to indicate a traitor. And any who choose to self-identify as a warlock are saying nothing at all about their ability to keep oath.
Also, it has long irked me that compilers of Modern English dictionaries seem so very ignorant of the role the Scandinavian languages played in the development of English in England and Scotland.
Allow me to illustrate with the word warlock.
If, as is posited in many Modern English dictionaries, the word"warlock" comes from a ME "warloghe" from OE "w¾rloga", then the Modern form we should expect to see would be something like warlow, or werlow, since the tendency to move from 'gh' to 'w' is strong in English, and from 'gh' to 'ck' unknown.
This is a trait it shares with Danish, and to provide an example, the Old Swedish "lagh" (meaning"law") is spelled in Modern Danish "lag" but pronounced "law" and in English, orthography and pronunciation are again in sync, with the form "law." That "gh" in the Middle English form "warloghe" indicates a uvular fricative, that is a g that is pronounced as if one were gargling (as in Dutch "gulder"). That aspirated "g" is what, in English, is usually exchanged for a "w". Other examples in English:"through", "drought", etc.
When one also considers the semantic shift,i.e., from "traitor, oathbreaker" to "sorcerer, conjurer", this all begins to introduce an element of doubt as to the actual etymology.
Now, when I find corroboration for this hypothesis in dictionaries of Old Norse (Cleasby, Vigfusson and Craigie), I must, as a trained linguist, seek another more satisfying etymology.
Here, then, is an alternative etymology for "warlock", one which I find both satisfying as a linguist and as a magic user.
In the Old Norse tale, Eiriks saga RauÝa (The Saga of Eirik the Red,mid 14th century), the term "varÝlokkur" appears in the context of a prophecy-session at a farm in Greenland.
It is used to mean a song of conjuring.
When the two constituent terms are split, we see "varÝ"which had by that time the sense of a spirit, and "lokkur" or a song of luring or attracting.
In Modern Swedish, the term "lock" is used for the pastoral songs that are sung to call the cows home from the meadow -- "kolock".
In just this same way, the song to attract or call the "varÝ" or spirit, was the "varÝlokkur".
Gradually, with time, the term for the song and for the singer became interchangeable, i.e., the same term was used for both.
Semantically, we can interpret the term as "enchanter, conjurer." Now, is all of this linguistically feasible? Yes, and here's why: The term varÝlokkur is a compound noun.
The consonantal combination "rÝl" could never occur otherwise.
As it is,this consonantal cluster is very difficult, even in Norse, so the tendency is to simplify.
Since in Old Norse, the rolled "r" followed by the liquid "l" would have organically produced the medial "Ý",this consonant is the most likely candidate for deletion.
Also, word initial "v" was commonly anglicized into word initial "w" in English.Examples: vOErd = ward, vurm = worm, vatten = water, ved = wood, etc.
And finally (and in my mind, most convincingly) the geminate "k" at the end of the Norse is reflected in the "ck" of the English.
Considering that there won't be any more Paizo-made base classes: no.
But 3PPs have that front covered, IIRC.
They won't? That's sad, there are a few class ideas I would have loved to see Paizo official, though most of them could probably be handled by archetype, one or two would probably look a lot smoother as their own classes. Or at least as variant classes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's pretty much one reason why we haven't updated the warlock... it, like all the other classes WotC created for 3rd edition that were not in the Player's Handbook, is not open content.
Step One: Relocate Paizo to a country without extradition treaties.
Step Two: Publish Warlock class.
...Oh man, this is going *exactly* as planned! /gigglesLOL....your EVIL ;)
What is a Warlock?
By: Niklas Gander
What is a Warlock? I know that this thread has wound down considerably, but in the interest of linguistics, I just wanted to add some potentially useful information on the use of the term "warlock." First of note is that the Modern English definition of the term has nothing to do with traitors or such, and at least according to the 'Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary' is defined:
1 : a man practicing the black arts: sorcerer;
2 : conjurer".Whatever its hypothetical etymology, it is nowadays *not* used to indicate a traitor. And any who choose to self-identify as a warlock are saying nothing at all about their ability to keep oath.
Also, it has long irked me that compilers of Modern English dictionaries seem so very ignorant of the role the Scandinavian languages played in the development of English in England and Scotland.
Allow me to illustrate with the word warlock.If, as is posited in many Modern English dictionaries, the word"warlock" comes from a ME "warloghe" from OE "w¾rloga", then the Modern form we should expect to see would be something like warlow, or werlow, since the tendency to move from 'gh' to 'w' is strong in English, and from 'gh' to 'ck' unknown.
This is a trait it shares with Danish, and to provide an example, the Old Swedish "lagh" (meaning"law") is spelled in Modern Danish "lag" but pronounced "law" and in English, orthography and pronunciation are again in sync, with the form "law." That "gh" in the Middle English form "warloghe" indicates a uvular fricative, that is a g that is pronounced as if one were gargling (as in Dutch "gulder"). That aspirated "g" is what, in English, is usually exchanged for a "w". Other examples in English:"through", "drought", etc.When one also considers the semantic shift,i.e., from "traitor, oathbreaker" to "sorcerer, conjurer", this all begins to introduce an element of
You can poke holes into a lot of class names. Why does "fighter" mean specializing in weapons? It means nothing but someone who is good at fighting, so why is weapon training a part of their class? Where is a barbarian defined as someone who uses their rage to get an edge in combat? Aren't barbarians just comparably primitive people living closer to nature? Isn't an oracle a medium that predicts the future?
Warlock especially is a term that has been absued so many times that at this point why would you even care if its the name of a dnd class. In most instances you wouldn't even use a characters class name ingame. It is often enough just a mechanical term.
Well, I can actually agree with some of the classes being badly named: the Inquisitor, for one. That should have been Monster Hunter D&D. He isn't no Spanish Inquisitor--he's a van Helsing wannabe!
LOL
Master Arminas
stacking...quotesofalot
To reiterate my point a little more straightforward: Who cares?
Magical ray expert, no. But remember the old film Warlock that starred Julian Sands? Except for the eldritch blast that movie greatly resembles the D&D Warlock of 3.5's Complete Arcane. It is part and parcel of pop culture and a legitimate source inspiration for the name.
Master Arminas
Well, I can actually agree with some of the classes being badly named: the Inquisitor, for one. That should have been Monster Hunter D&D. He isn't no Spanish Inquisitor--he's a van Helsing wannabe!
I must say, I have an unabated dislike for the inquisitor class based solely on its name. My initial reaction to seeing the class was hostile, to put it in diplomacy terms, and while the mechanics of the class itself are interesting...man I wish they had used a name with less...negativity attached to it. It's very jarring. If I ever do play one, I'm definitely insisting on a rename for what he refers to himself as and what I put on my character sheet.
And if you think I'm being unreasonable for getting offended at the name of the class instead of viewing it as simply a word meaning for one who inquires, all I have to say is... Paizo didn't exactly do a good job of easing that tension...
StreamOfTheSky, have you seen my Templar? It is a monk, inquisitor hybrid that you might enjoy. And by Templar, I mean more Dark Sun and less Crusades/France.
Master Arminas
StreamOfTheSky, have you seen my Templar? It is a monk, inquisitor hybrid that you might enjoy. And by Templar, I mean more Dark Sun and less Crusades/France.
Master Arminas
It's interesting. I guess the Celerity is to be a faux flurry of blows.
Well, I can actually agree with some of the classes being badly named: the Inquisitor, for one. That should have been Monster Hunter D&D. He isn't no Spanish Inquisitor--he's a van Helsing wannabe!I must say, I have an unabated dislike for the inquisitor class based solely on its name. My initial reaction to seeing the class was hostile, to put it in diplomacy terms, and while the mechanics of the class itself are interesting...man I wish they had used a name with less...negativity attached to it. It's very jarring. If I ever do play one, I'm definitely insisting on a rename for what he refers to himself as and what I put on my character sheet.
And if you think I'm being unreasonable for getting offended at the name of the class instead of viewing it as simply a word meaning for one who inquires, all I have to say is... Paizo didn't exactly do a good job of easing that tension...
The name describes the class pretty well to me. And it should hardly be surprising that the evil variety of the class would have such a spell (note the descriptor). I'd be more worried about the various other interrogatory spells on the inquisitor list that don't have that descriptor. . . .
Regardless, the class serves a particular purpose, and the name describes it very well for that purpose. The fact that, crunch-wise, it doubles as a great monster-hunting class is secondary. If you don't feel comfortable playing as an unfettered problem solver for the faith, don't play the class.
The name describes the class pretty well to me. And it should hardly be surprising that the evil variety of the class would have such a spell (note the descriptor). I'd be more worried about the various other interrogatory spells on the inquisitor list that don't have that descriptor. . . .
Regardless, the class serves a particular purpose, and the name describes it very well for that purpose. The fact that, crunch-wise, it doubles as a great monster-hunting class is secondary. If you don't feel comfortable playing as an unfettered problem solver for the faith, don't play the class.
1. It's a PC class, and i find that in poor taste. When the witch gets a bunch of evil stuff, it's based on fantasy and fairy tales, like poisoned apples or sniffing out children. It's quite a different thing to name a class after, and give it abilities that harken to, an actual real life atrocity. As a witch player, I could make an evil character that's haughty and hates and feels superior to the native "savages" and uses the Beguiling Gift spell to trick them into wrapping themselves in smallpox infested blankets if I wanted to. But none of the class features or spells are actually geared/hardcoded specifically towards mimicking that atrocity. Do you understand the difference?
2. I have no problem playing as "an unfettered problem solver for the faith," I like the existence of a rogue/cleric hybrid. My only problem is the name association. And I rename things all the time as well. Inquisitor would mark one of the first times I felt I had to, just to stomach playing it at all.
Well, I can actually agree with some of the classes being badly named: the Inquisitor, for one. That should have been Monster Hunter D&D. He isn't no Spanish Inquisitor--he's a van Helsing wannabe!I must say, I have an unabated dislike for the inquisitor class based solely on its name. My initial reaction to seeing the class was hostile, to put it in diplomacy terms, and while the mechanics of the class itself are interesting...man I wish they had used a name with less...negativity attached to it. It's very jarring. If I ever do play one, I'm definitely insisting on a rename for what he refers to himself as and what I put on my character sheet.
And if you think I'm being unreasonable for getting offended at the name of the class instead of viewing it as simply a word meaning for one who inquires, all I have to say is... Paizo didn't exactly do a good job of easing that tension...
As i said earlier, the class name is primarily a mechanical term and by no means what a character would refer to himself as in the game. While in some cases it works, like bards, paladins and wizards for example, I don't think a rogue would ever introduce himself by that term. Or a barbarian wouldn't think of himself as a barbarian.
Also there are class names that have much broader use. Not every alchemist is someone who brews extracts and mutagens and hurls bombs around, some are wizards or witches who take an interest in crafting potions, tanglefoot bags and the like.
If you're right (and I'm not a trained linguist as you claim to be, so I'll take your word for it), the term 'warlock' means 'enchanter' or 'conjurer'. What does this have to do with an expert in shooting magical rays?
For the record, I didn't claim to be a trained linguist, however the author of the article is a PhD candidate in Philology of languages.
I think what is has to do with the Warlock, is his forming a pact with spirits....the eldritch blast is just where they went from there in the class design.