I have player who keeps bugging me to let him run a 3.5 Warlock.
(I told him no because my campaign world calls any evil spellcaster a "warlock".)
However:
Apparently it was/is a very popular class with some people. I tried playing it once and found it dull myself. Still, this player really wants the 3.5 warlock back.
I've been thinking of making an eldritch blasting witch archetype for him. Maybe dropping some hexes and spell casting for the eldritch blast and some invocations.
The warlock isn't really a spellcaster in the sorcerer/witch/wizard meaning of the term. It's more of a ranged combatant that knows a few magical tricks. With the correct selection of invocations, it can also make a surprisingly effective tank.
What makes it really fun is the lack of book keeping combined with magical powers that are available at will and/or have 24 hour durations.
They are really easy to run. Ideal for newbies and rules-lite players.
As i said earlier, the class name is primarily a mechanical termThe class name is short hand for the category of character concept.
Its why 'fighter' is called 'fighter' and not 'apple cart'.
Very well, if you feel it more appropriate to use terms like
magical ray specialist or magic-fighter instead of short, simple albeit slightly arbitrary words like warlock or magus, do go ahead. But I doubt you will find an accurate one-word term describing either of these class concepts.
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.
1. There are plenty of spells on the witch spell list that are geared/hardcoded toward atrocities. For that matter, [evil] spells are on all clerics' spell lists as well; ditto for sorcerers, wizards, etc., and many of the spells are very much geared toward heinous acts. Again, feel free to not use any spells you feel are against character. You can play a perfectly good inquisitor without any atrocious behavior.
We have a CG NPC in our campaign (though the PCs haven't met her, and may not)--the Captain of an infiltration and strike team nicknamed "The Flyswatters" who tracks down and eradicates Ghlaunder cults. Appropriately, she's an inquisitor of Desna. The class name fits very well, as the nature of such cults is that they subvert other congregations into inadvertently worshiping Ghlaunder. One need not associate her with 16th century Spaniards to use the term. (Though it is true that when she arrives somewhere, nobody expects her.)
There is not a lot of net gain in using names that may be more accurate but the broad audience still has absolutely no concept as to their meaning.
|
There is not a lot of net gain in using names that may be more accurate but the broad audience still has absolutely no concept as to their meaning.
Example: In medieval times, the term Buckler was actually used for people who liked to fight. Ergo, the Fighter would actually be called a Buckler. The actual shield that Paizo calls a Buckler was called a Poor-Man's Shield(kinda like a Po'boy sandwitch). "But wait!" cried the fans, "The Buckler is a shield! Is my character a living shield?" So thus, the modern term was used and the Fighter was labeled as it is seen today.
Well as far as a warlock class the 3pp Tome of Secrects has a decent one that several players of mine have used.
Oh, god, Talonhawke. I hated that conversion. Detested it actually. I was trying to forget it ever existed.
Master Arminas
My guys love it and we definatly had no issues with its power level.
Could be worse could be that books Artificer that thing was a broken beast of epic proportions.
Oh, no. The power level was fine. Sub-par in fact. I just didn't like the execution. It was solely a matter of personal preference.
MA
They could call it the invoker or magician or thaumaturgist or something. Instead of eldritch blast, it could be invoke ray. Etc. etc.
|
There's a warlock base class in Tome of Secrets. It's pretty easy to find. My favorite difference that they made was the eldritch blast, now called the arcane bolt, is any one energy type that you want (fire, cold, acid, electricity), is supernatural instead of spell-like, and eventually can be made to have the same radius as a fireball.
As for capturing the feel of a warlock, that is to say a spell caster who draws power from forces of evil, demons, devils, and the like, then Pathfinder already has the idea covered pretty well with evil clerics, witches, and summoners.
As for a class where you have a handful of magical powers that you can use repeatedly without limit, including a magical attack, then that is what is lacking. That idea, in my mind, matches more with what a sorcerer is supposed to be than a warlock is supposed to be. In any case, Pathfinder rules are pretty much the same as D&D rules, so if the DM says its OK, just use the warlock class from D&D.
Personally, I think that D&D has traditionally overvalued the ability to use powers over and over again without limit. You can see this in how weak they made monster PC's who have natural spell-like powers (huge LA's so that you have half the Hit Points of the rest of the party), Innate Spell where you have to spend four feats so that you can switch out a 9th level slot for a 1st level at will spell, or the warlock class where you have a paltry number of relatively weak invocations. Just getting some basic natural resistance to an energy type is difficult even when it can easily be had with a 1st level spell. Basically, what I am saying here is that the warlock class should get a boost of some kind if you bring it into Pathfinder. More invocations I think, more versatility and thematic powers.
|
|
I don't see the class coming to Pathfinder, because it's already here. Completely compatible with the game.
It did though. It's in Tome of Secrets. Granted it's 3rd Party and not Paizo, but they made good base classes.
You can also go to this site to see it (scroll down halfway) and the Swashbuckler mapped out low-level NPCs.
Warlock was my favorite class in 3.5.
The use of that one feat that allows you to exchange prepared spells or spell slots is that you can't get the thing until 10th casting level so for most spell capable classes that wouldn't be until 11th level.
I'm in an unfortunate position in that my group hate the Warlock class, third party material, and homebrew material.
I'm not interested in seeing the Warlock class converted to Pathfinder.
I want all the 'normal' spellcasting classes to have more substantial at-will magic than 0th level spells-- Wizards with a variety of elemental attacks and at-will utilities, Clerics with their Domain powers, and so forth. Paizo ever gets around to a second edition, I'd like to see at-will and ritual magic play a prominent role in the magic system.
I want all the 'normal' spellcasting classes to have more substantial at-will magic than 0th level spells-- Wizards with a variety of elemental attacks and at-will utilities, Clerics with their Domain powers, and so forth. Paizo ever gets around to a second edition, I'd like to see at-will and ritual magic play a prominent role in the magic system.
4th Edition?
4th Edition?
Yeah. There were a lot of good ideas in Fourth, even if they were saddled with a generally unwieldy system-- and closed content. Paizo could do a lot worse than to learn from the things their rivals got right.
Things are in flux right now, since I'm trying to simplify things as much as possible, but I'm incorporating a lot of 4E ideas into my House Rules lab on PFSRD.
They could call it the invoker or magician or thaumaturgist or something. Instead of eldritch blast, it could be invoke ray. Etc. etc.
**** Refers poster to the legal library section regarding "Derivative Works". ****
A small one horse outfit that sells PDFs over the internet might be able to get away with such shennanigans. Paizo on the other hand, is firmly within WOTC's legal radar, just as any company with a similar presence on the market would be.
Well I'm no big city lawyer, but...
Dang it! I really like the combination of magic powers and no bookkeeping! It's a really fun and easy character to play, especially for newbies or rules-lite players.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gpBA73LlaGbxj_nIxtcoyDCiZ8TD14sqtk2B-3z az1U/edit
There's my conversion. Only thing I might get rid of is the armor profiencies, but I feel it adds some durability.
Edit: I'm going to scap em'. It's too much.
While the Tome of Secrets warlock class isn't the worst I've seen, it just seriously lacks creativity. I like the arcane bolt, that's about it.