| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestion/Request: Would Paizo be willing to Design a new Class as something akin to the 3.5 Warlock?
I know this is play test area, but after examining the PDF I noticed that this particular type of class has not been addressed. Since Paizo is still in the design stages of this book, I felt as though now might be the time for us to ask them if they would be willing to consider this.
The Warlock was a very popular class in the 3.5 era. A caster that uses a limited number of spell like abilities rather than spells and has an unlimited number of uses of these abilities per day. Now I understand that the Warlock is no open source material and thus cannot be officially converted but could we not try for something similar in nature to this class.
We already have a ton of variations for the arcane and divine casting routes. So far on the arcane side we have the Wizard, the Witch, and the Sorcerer. For the Divine team we have the Cleric, the Druid, and the Oracle. Then we have the 3/4 team of Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, and Alchemist.
So far these have all been different variations on the same mechanical themes but we've yet to see something different in the casters. I understand its easier to balance this way as everyone essentially uses the same rules for casting, but its not like spell like abilities are a brand new concept, monsters have been using them since the Monster Manual was printed.
So if you're going to create a book of new classes, my suggestion is rather than just meshing together some things we've seen before, why not give us something new. Something different. Currently there is no class that does this in Pathfinder, and I for one, would love to see one.
and I have a feeling there are those of us in the community that would like to see this as well.
It is merely a suggestion, to the Paizo staff, if they are going to be introducing all these new classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really want to second this request as something that folks at Paizo consider.
I would LOVE to see a Paizo write up of a 'Warlock' like class compatible with Pathfinder if it is at all possible.
Problem is that 3.5 Warlock is not an Open Content so the Paizo would have to create something substantially different from 3.5 Warlock to avoid possible legal problems.
I'd personally prefer to see something closer to the binder than the warlock, since that'd be the way to go to produce a solid general-purpose class with at-will magic that can be at least reasonably effective at mid to high levels.
Problem is that 3.5 Warlock is not an Open Content so the Paizo would have to create something substantially different from 3.5 Warlock to avoid possible legal problems.
Specific text can be copyrighted, but game mechanics in general can't. Paizo would have to create different specific powers and names, sure, but there'd be no trouble in taking the basic idea of "has some set of powers that can be used at-will or every few rounds, grouped into a few different types and tiered by level, with a primary damage-dealing ability that scales by level and can have extra effects added on".
This is why, for example, Dreamscarred Press can work on Path of War, which is aimed at emulating the mechanical style of Tome of Battle, but uses new classes and maneuvers.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you like the 3.5 Warlock so much, why don't you just convert it over and use it?
-Skeld
Yeah! Why don't you marry it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you like the 3.5 Warlock so much, why don't you just convert it over and use it?
-Skeld
My group has made an attempt that we are currently using.
That does not mean I cannot recognise that (at least to our group) Paizo folks are better game desingers than we are and it would not be a treat to see their take on the concept using the mechanics of the original class as a starting concept.
As well, if they DID do such, it would then be part of the Pathfinder game system and would probably be usable at PFS games for those who do such and (possibly more importantly to many who like the class concept) it would could get ongoing support in further products from Paizo vis-a-vis feats and new SLA's.
Um, one could also say, "If you like roleplaying games so much, why don't you just make one yourself and use it?"
But we don't.
If you like the 3.5 Warlock so much, why don't you just convert it over and use it?
What's the point of posting this?
This is an argument that can be used to argue against literally anything and everything that Paizo might ever want to publish, including the stuff in the ACG itself that the devs have already said they're going to change based on player feedback! ("If you want an Arcanist with non-bloodline abilities, why don't you just make some yourself?")
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the lead designer on the aforementioned Path of War supplement, I gotta say, that once I get untangled from swords and arrows, the next thing I'm going to try to pitch to my bosses at Dreamscarred Press is invokers of all shapes and colors. I loved the concept of the warlock and there is a much bigger world of possibilities out there with the chassis that it runs on.
-X
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1.) I understand that the 3.5 Warlock is not open content and I even stated this in my original post. While the name Warlock, and his flavor text methods of Invocations are copy written the mechanics behind "Spell like Abilities" are not. The only thing Paizo cannot do is replicate the Warlock class word for word as is. They would have to come up with something like they did for the Samurai, Ninja, or Swashbuckler.
There is nothing stopping them from creating a caster that uses Spell Like Abilities at will. There is noting stopping them from calling an ability and Arcane or Eldritch Blast. They may even be able to call it a Warlock and have is system be based and a Eldritch "Grit Pool".
So as I said earlier, I understand the Warlock is not open source. I am not asking for a direct translation. WHAT I AM ASKING FOR is a caster that uses spell like abilities at will, rather than spells.
2.) Why don't I just use a homebrew option if I like it so much. Fact is that I do, but you know what, its homebrew. And I'm sure there are plenty of people that have translated it on their own as well. You know what the problem is with homebrew? You can't use homebrew if you want to play in PF society. You can't use homebrew in almost any game buy your own unless you have friends or DMs that really trust your mastery of the system in terms of class design.
No to mention a trend I have noticed is that people are increasingly using fewer and fewer 3.5 materials period. Some table tops don't want to use or allow 3.5 materials at all. And while the counter argument to that would be "well then just play 3.5" that then forces us to chose between playing an outdated and busted 3.5 system or playing something that is a little more balanced and up to date.
The fact is that while I can convert it on my own (and have already done so) there is still nothing OFFICAL that is like the warlock for Pathfinder and there are those of us THAT WANT something like the Warlock officially for Pathfinder.
As for marrying the damn thing, maybe I already have, but that's personal and between me and my wife. Thanks :P
On a completely different note, yes I would love to see new classes with entirely new ideas for mechanics, like Binders, as well. While I understand that the new classes have new unique abilities and Mechanics a good deal of them seem to be a What if I mix class A with Class B, rather than a completely new concept like a Binder.
How about an Engineer style class that could produce different effects based on what he built? Something completely non magical, but focused on imparting devices with Extraordinary abilities. While I'm sure the "new classes" are interesting I'm sure there are those of us who want to see Paizo tackle entirely new concepts and mechanics for classes that the current ones cannot fit into.
As the lead designer on the aforementioned Path of War supplement, I gotta say, that once I get untangled from swords and arrows, the next thing I'm going to try to pitch to my bosses at Dreamscarred Press is invokers of all shapes and colors. I loved the concept of the warlock and there is a much bigger world of possibilities out there with the chassis that it runs on.
Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please make it more effective and actually interesting than the Warlock turned out to be in practice.
(The Harrowed is one of the more interesting takes I've seen before on the idea, but I'm guessing you've likely seen it before, what with the coworker thing.)
As the lead designer on the aforementioned Path of War supplement, I gotta say, that once I get untangled from swords and arrows, the next thing I'm going to try to pitch to my bosses at Dreamscarred Press is invokers of all shapes and colors. I loved the concept of the warlock and there is a much bigger world of possibilities out there with the chassis that it runs on.Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please make it more effective and actually interesting than the Warlock turned out to be in practice.
(The Harrowed is one of the more interesting takes I've seen before on the idea, but I'm guessing you've likely seen it before, what with the coworker thing.)
I would certainly make it more effective, that's for sure. Not only is the power scale a bit different in PF than in 3.5, the warlock suffered a lot of indignities and the artwork was just the tip of the iceberg for that. Knives' Harrowed is a premier example of what can be done using invokers as a chassis and I've got some experience with them myself. Who knows? :)
-X
As the lead designer on the aforementioned Path of War supplement, I gotta say, that once I get untangled from swords and arrows, the next thing I'm going to try to pitch to my bosses at Dreamscarred Press is invokers of all shapes and colors. I loved the concept of the warlock and there is a much bigger world of possibilities out there with the chassis that it runs on.Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please make it more effective and actually interesting than the Warlock turned out to be in practice.
(The Harrowed is one of the more interesting takes I've seen before on the idea, but I'm guessing you've likely seen it before, what with the coworker thing.)
Y'know, I never saw the Harrowed as an invoker.
Which does not stop me from being incredibly flattered that you've heard of me here.
I'd personally prefer to see something closer to the binder than the warlock, since that'd be the way to go to produce a solid general-purpose class with at-will magic that can be at least reasonably effective at mid to high levels.
Problem is that 3.5 Warlock is not an Open Content so the Paizo would have to create something substantially different from 3.5 Warlock to avoid possible legal problems.Specific text can be copyrighted, but game mechanics in general can't. Paizo would have to create different specific powers and names, sure, but there'd be no trouble in taking the basic idea of "has some set of powers that can be used at-will or every few rounds, grouped into a few different types and tiered by level, with a primary damage-dealing ability that scales by level and can have extra effects added on".
This is why, for example, Dreamscarred Press can work on Path of War, which is aimed at emulating the mechanical style of Tome of Battle, but uses new classes and maneuvers.
And also why the Spellslinger is so close to Privateer Press' Gun Mage.
That said, hasn't somebody already converted the warlock on one of these 3rd party websites?
I think that eventual warlock class should use hexes as the established at-will powers currently available to PC classes with greatly expanded list of hexes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really want to second this request as something that folks at Paizo consider.
I would LOVE to see a Paizo write up of a 'Warlock' like class compatible with Pathfinder if it is at all possible.
Here's a problem you don't seem to get. If Paizo puts out something that's recognizably derivative of the 3.5 Warlock, and it it would probably have to be, for you to get what you want, that would put them right in the center of Hasbro's legal crosshairs. The 3.5 Warlock is closed content, end of story.
And you can pretty much bet your bottom dollar that the folks at WOTC pay close attention to every book Paizo puts out. I sure know I would, if I were them.
This is a completely wrong statement. All that the IP in place prevents paizo from doing is using the class/ability names and plagiarising mechanics.
Creating a class which focuses on at will SLA's that feels like the 3.5 warlock violates no IP concerns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The two things I want most out of a fantasy game are currently not present in Pathfinder:
1) A non-magical character with narrative power
2) A magical character without daily resources
The first seems impossible in the current system, so I'd settle for something like the 4e Warlord--a non-magical Bard, for example.
The second is partially found in the Witch, but Hexes are not quite there, since they lack any kind of blasting and have much more profound control effects, whereas the Warlock had an "all-the-time blast" and utility powers otherwise.
Anyway, enough rambling--I fully support this request, though realize it falls on deaf ears. Though, who knows--the Skald is enough of a failure in both mechanics and flavor (as seen by the utter lack of posts in the thread) that they may want to drop it completely for something else.
Not sure about Paizo, but there are at least two 3PP warlocks I know(Apparently DSP makes a 3rd, but errantX's work is bleh imo) and there are a few warlock-esque things from Paizo(though they aren't even close to what your asking imo). There's also quiet a bit of homebrew out there that resembles/reflects the warlock.
I do love the glaivelock concept, and I like at-will all day casters so... Not exactly against the existence of guys who can do that. I'd definitely be interested, if that matters.
Isn't there some sort of aversion to at-will powers in Pathfinder?
Sounds like players would actually hate getting an Eldritch Blast dealing 1d6 points of damage per 2 levels once per 5 rounds.
If Tome of Magic could implement such a mecanic with at-will powers with vestiges, pretty sure Paizio could do so with a warlock-like class. The Occultist 3rd-party class uses vestige mecanics, including powers once/5 rounds, that doesn't break the game.
|
If you like the 3.5 Warlock so much, why don't you just convert it over and use it?What's the point of posting this?
This is an argument that can be used to argue against literally anything and everything that Paizo might ever want to publish, including the stuff in the ACG itself that the devs have already said they're going to change based on player feedback! ("If you want an Arcanist with non-bloodline abilities, why don't you just make some yourself?")
When PFRPG was kicked off, there were two reasons Paizo went with the approach of backward compatibility with 3.5: 1) so that players didn't have an entire library of 3.5 that was suddenly invalidated by the move to 4e (and a lot of people were already PO'd about the edition rev), and 2) so that Paizo didn't have to go back and recreate everyone's favorite this-or-that. Instead, they've spent much more time focusing on adding to the game (archetypes, traits, kingdom-building rules, etc.) than they have rebuilding the same stuff all over again.
They've generally only converted things that needed to be converted and, when they have, those things are often quite different from their 3.5 analogue. We have Mythic rules instead of Epic rules. Instead of a Scout class, we have an archetype of Rogue. Psionics, which players have been clamoring for since day one, aren't even officially part of the system.
So, the point I'm making is that you're probably better off converting the 3.5 Warlock you know and love because, if and when Paizo makes a "warlock," it might not look that much like the Warlock you're used to (and it's highly unlikely to be called a "Warlock" or something else will use that name). You're likely to be disappointed when reality doesn't match your expectation.
-Skeld
EDIT: And let's not forgett hat we don't know everything that's going to be in the ACG (with regard to Archetypes, and such).
Isn't there some sort of aversion to at-will powers in Pathfinder?
There might be... Count the number of things limited by your class level or have 3+MayAsWellBeAllDay. Even the hair hex isn't all day...
If PF made classes without daily resources, I doubt I would ever play anything else.
Just to clarify, though ... is the assumption that the Warlock would be underpowered if ported directly to PF as is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If PF made classes without daily resources, I doubt I would ever play anything else.
I had that thought when I first started playing ToB classes dontcha' know.
Just to clarify, though ... is the assumption that the Warlock would be underpowered if ported directly to PF as is?
Well, most classes did get a boost(or at least new features), and the warlock was actually a little underperforming outside of certain builds. Tier 4 for a reason. That said, I've heard they can be very fun, and glaivelock looks pretty wicked. Splatbooks helped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If PF made classes without daily resources, I doubt I would ever play anything else.I had that thought when I first started playing ToB classes dontcha' know.
Just to clarify, though ... is the assumption that the Warlock would be underpowered if ported directly to PF as is?Well, most classes did get a boost(or at least new features), and the warlock was actually a little underperforming outside of certain builds. Tier 4 for a reason. That said, I've heard they can be very fun, and glaivelock looks pretty wicked. Splatbooks helped.
I can tell you that even in 3.5, a small army of warlock NPCs was little threat to my party at the time Complete Arcane came out.
I tooled them to be a level-appropriate threat and figured the at-will blast would actually make them rather formidable, but it just didn't work out. I threw three squads at them over three sessions and they barely scratched the party.
I like the concept of the warlock, but I always felt the invocations section was poorly written and messy, and when building them I always found myself drifting to the same invocations because they were all too limited and redundant to be very interesting.
Plus, on a purely aesthetic note, Morthos the iconic warlock looked like a total douche. Like he just discovered goth metal on Monday and on Tuesday spent all his money from working at the GAP to buy himself as much tooled leather as he could find. ;P
Just to clarify, though ... is the assumption that the Warlock would be underpowered if ported directly to PF as is?
The warlock is underpowered in 3.5 to start with.
It starts off strong but boring at 1st level, where the ranged touch attack is king and 1d6 damage can put down almost anything with a few hits... but it gets increasingly anemic as levels increase and the question becomes not "can you hit" but "how many times can you hit" and as even the lowly fighter becomes capable of picking up a composite longbow and doing oodles of damage to things at far longer ranges than the warlock (and without having to devote an invocation or feat slot just to hit things past 60 feet).
The magic effects that last all day are nice, but the structure of D&D means they don't really matter that much except in very specific campaigns.
The invocations that get unique effects are nice, but because the warlock only gets a handful of them (and doesn't even get the multi-option toggles that a wilder does for his powers), he's like the magic version of a 3.5 fighter, with a handful of specific tricks he can do and having to fall back on magic items for anything else... but, unlike the fighter, the warlock can't even fall back on just doing absurd damage to anything that gets in his way, because he has to worry about SR, energy resistance/immunity types, and having a flat Xd6 base damage amount.
Here's a problem you don't seem to get...Really want to second this request as something that folks at Paizo consider.
I would LOVE to see a Paizo write up of a 'Warlock' like class compatible with Pathfinder if it is at all possible.
No, I fully understand the legal limitations of intellectual properties and the open license situation, which is why the word Warlock is in quotes and the word LIKE is after it, to indicate that something with mechanics and theme inspired by the concept would be welcome while recognising that straight up duplication and expansion on the original is not possible in an actually literal basis.
Further I was showing support for the well written request of the OP, which does indeed already touch on your objection above.
As well, I have more faith in Paizo's legal ability and game creativity than it appears you seem to, since my post assumes that if they legally cannot in any way fulfil such a request then a class of that nature won't happen but if they can and want to then they would do it in a fashion that would probably make it enjoyable to play and safe (legally) for their company to do so.
But I wanted to make sure that they knew, if that request IS possible, that there was fan support for it in their customer base as many others in this thread have as well. After all, no one loses anyting by us ASKING.
And since Spell Like Abilities ARE open license and many classes already have spell like abilities I fail to see how making a classes totally based on nothing but spell like abilities could ever be legally prosecutable. That said I will admit I am not a lawyer but I feel rather confident in my statement in any case.
Adamant Entertainment came out with this Warlock if it suits your needs.
Don't get discouraged by the 'school' abilities; you must keep in mind that the Warlock above can select any Wizard school powers, and they all become at-will abilities. See this thread for a post by the owner and creative director of Adamant Entertainment.
If that doesn't immediately spark ideas, you need to go back and read through some of the Wizard school abilities.
For instance, if you choose the Shift ability from the Teleportation sub-school, you gain an at-will swift action Dimension Door. You could bounce around combat like Nightcrawler, especially if you let the Shift ability 'count' for the Dimensional Agility line of feats.
If you pick the Air Supremacy ability from the Air Elemental School, you get Feather Fall then Levitate then Fly at-will as you increase your level.
If you take the Change Shape ability from the Transmutation school, you can mimic a Druid as you gain Beast Shape II and Elemental Body I as at-will abilities. Bonus! they become Beast Shape III and Elemental Body II at 12th. While not super powerful, there is so much scouting and utility to this it's ridiculous.
There are a lot of cool powers you can pick from, and since your class is so unique, you can really mix them in ways they weren't meant to be mixed to gain some good power.
Plus, you get the Arcane Bolt line of powers, which aren't too shabby. The Warlock, if the right abilities are chosen (namely Air Supremacy and the Arcane Bolt line) you could mimic some Dragon Ball Z characters.
Here is a list of, in my opinion, some of the better powers you could select.
From the Warlock Schools:
Arcane Bolt (Evocation School, Level 1)
See Invisible (Divination School, Level 4)
*Summon Monster (Conjuration School, Level 4)
Physically Fit (Transmutation School, Level 12)
*Astral Travel (Necromancy School, Level 16)
*Summoning Master (Conjuration School, Level 20)
From the Wizard Schools:
Augment (Enhancement Sub-School, Level 1)
Forewarned (Divination School, Level 1)
Shift (Teleportation Sub-School, Level 1)
Air Supremacy (Elemental School, Level 1)
Change Shape (Transmutation School, Level 8)
Perfection of Self (Enhancement Sub-School, Level 8)
*Invisibility Field (Illusion School, Level 8)
Dimensional Steps (Conjuration School, Level 8)
Some of the, potentially, most powerful abilities are asterisked above. Summon Monster may not seem all that good, but it is... at first. Summon Monster II with a duration of 24 hours and max hit points; awesome for when you get it, but it weakens as you get higher level. Then, at 20th level, it turns AMAZING. 24 hours Summon Monster IX with max HP? FREAKING A! Take Augment Summons and Superios Summons and have your self a legion of T-Rexes!
Astral Travel means you have at-will Immortality (adventure as your Astral self, just keep your body safe, can anyone say, John Carter?); and with Invisibility Field, you get Swift Action, at-will Greater Invisibility. Stay Invisibile forever!
As a GM, Warlock makes me cackle with glee, because there is soooooooo much potential for villains. With at-will Summon Monster II, you NEVER know whether or not those birds in the trees are just birds, or spies for the BBEG. He could be Invisible standing right next to you and the party. If you kill him, it may just be his Astral Self. He could be flying and blasting you from 100 ft +10/level away with his Arcane Bolts.
Even if he isn't a BBEG, he is an AMAZING reoccurring villain. F!+~er is hard to kill, hard to pin down, and so easy to annoy the party with! All in all, a fun class in my opinion.
I would really like to see a paizo version of the warlock. I've seen a few homebrew versions, but I would really like an oficial one.
Just to clarify, though ... is the assumption that the Warlock would be underpowered if ported directly to PF as is?The warlock is underpowered in 3.5 to start with.
It starts off strong but boring at 1st level, where the ranged touch attack is king and 1d6 damage can put down almost anything with a few hits... but it gets increasingly anemic as levels increase and the question becomes not "can you hit" but "how many times can you hit" and as even the lowly fighter becomes capable of picking up a composite longbow and doing oodles of damage to things at far longer ranges than the warlock (and without having to devote an invocation or feat slot just to hit things past 60 feet).
Usually you went glaivelock/clawlock or used the hellfire warlock PrC to keep up the eldritch blast focus if I remember right. On its own the eldritch blast wasn't that fantastic.
Isn't there some sort of aversion to at-will powers in Pathfinder?There might be... Count the number of things limited by your class level or have 3+MayAsWellBeAllDay. Even the hair hex isn't all day...
Did they ever explain why?
Did they ever explain why?Isn't there some sort of aversion to at-will powers in Pathfinder?There might be... Count the number of things limited by your class level or have 3+MayAsWellBeAllDay. Even the hair hex isn't all day...
I certainly can't tell you exactly why, but if you have unlimited abilities like prehensile hair and a warlock with his eldritch blast and unlimited spell-like abilities (and even equality between long bows and crossbows) - where does the game cross the line from fantasy RPG and into cape and tights superhero RPG? And should the game dally too much with that line? Should the PF game incorporate elements to support the players who want a superhero-vibe to their fantasy characters? Or should it encourage those players to just make the switch to a supers game and play fantasy-tinted super heroes?
This might be up some of your alleys.
I came to this thread to say this. I bought it but never got a chance to play it or see it played but it seems legit. Its a little weak when you really think about it but hey infinite d6 blasts.
Also There is a kind-of binder here.
I was under the impression that the alchemist was as close as paizo was willing to get to the warlock...mechanically speaking.
Either way I would like to see a warlock themed character but I hope that they put a limit on the number of eldrich blasts they get per day (same as alchemists bombs)...infinite 1-10d6 touch attacks was just silly...imo...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way I would like to see a warlock themed character but I hope that they put a limit on the number of eldrich blasts they get per day (same as alchemists bombs)...infinite 1-10d6 touch attacks was just silly...imo...
Its not really that amazing. Besides, the alchemist does far worse when he nabs fast bomb. I'm going to throw out 5 bombs and 3 different types of debuffs and your going to get hit by all of them and so are your buddies!
Its okay to have things that are balanced to use all day.
Its okay to have things that are balanced to use all day.
Pretty much this. I've run two campaigns with a Warlock in the party. They don't have near the control capacity of a full caster, slightly less utility than an Alchemist, and don't deal near the damage of a well-built Barbarian, much less a smiting Paladin or FE-targeting Ranger.
They're super accurate since they aim for touch AC all the time, but they have trouble punching through SR, a problem the Gunslinger doesn't have to deal with, and they can't make iterative attacks while a Gunslinger or any Melee-centric class can. They'll more likely than not hit with their first shot, but so will the Barbarian, and they have a lot less static damage than the Barbarian does - if the d6s are not kind to the Warlock, he easily does much less damage. And the Barbarian still gets another swing or two.
They're cool, but they're far from broken.
Here's a problem you don't seem to get. If Paizo puts out something that's recognizably derivative of the 3.5 Warlock, and it it would probably have to be, for you to get what you want, that would put them right in the center of Hasbro's legal crosshairs. The 3.5 Warlock is closed content, end of story.
That is a stupid reason, first of all because IP claims are a stupid reason for anything and second because as long as Paizo changes the right "magic words" they can get something mechanically similar through.
It is the combination of name and mechanics that is the problem. A similar class with different nouns in the right places is fine and the name Warlock is fine on its own. In fact I think the Bloorager should be changed to Warlock.
The actually compelling reason for staying away from stuff from old WoTC splatbooks was brought up a long time ago in a thread about the old Spell Compendium and it is that a lot of the Paizo designers worked on the 3.5 splatbooks and they don't want to rehash work they have already done.
IP claims are a stupid reason for anything
Tell that to the legal department when you have a lawsuit breathing down your neck. If you don't think WotC won't leap at the chance to pounce on Paizo for a breach of copyright you just haven't been paying attention to legal reality in the past few decades.
IP claims are a stupid reason for anythingTell that to the legal department when you have a lawsuit breathing down your neck. If you don't think WotC won't leap at the chance to pounce on Paizo for a breach of copyright you just haven't been paying attention to legal reality in the past few decades.
He isn't saying IP concerns should be ignored. He is saying that using IP concerns as an excuse to not deliver a product is a weak argument. The desired result of this suggestion could easily be accomplished within the constraints of IP law.
Usually you went glaivelock/clawlock or used the hellfire warlock PrC to keep up the eldritch blast focus if I remember right. On its own the eldritch blast wasn't that fantastic.Just to clarify, though ... is the assumption that the Warlock would be underpowered if ported directly to PF as is?The warlock is underpowered in 3.5 to start with.
It starts off strong but boring at 1st level, where the ranged touch attack is king and 1d6 damage can put down almost anything with a few hits... but it gets increasingly anemic as levels increase and the question becomes not "can you hit" but "how many times can you hit" and as even the lowly fighter becomes capable of picking up a composite longbow and doing oodles of damage to things at far longer ranges than the warlock (and without having to devote an invocation or feat slot just to hit things past 60 feet).
Mostly just checking 'cause I might ask to play one next time I need a new character.
Ask a lawyer who specialist in copyright law sometime about the concept of derivative work. And again keep in mind that Paizo isn't some fly by night 3rd party player that can do a lot to keep under Hasbro's radar.Here's a problem you don't seem to get. If Paizo puts out something that's recognizably derivative of the 3.5 Warlock, and it it would probably have to be, for you to get what you want, that would put them right in the center of Hasbro's legal crosshairs. The 3.5 Warlock is closed content, end of story.That is a stupid reason, first of all because IP claims are a stupid reason for anything and second because as long as Paizo changes the right "magic words" they can get something mechanically similar through.
It is the combination of name and mechanics that is the problem. A similar class with different nouns in the right places is fine and the name Warlock is fine on its own. In fact I think the Bloorager should be changed to Warlock.
The actually compelling reason for staying away from stuff from old WoTC splatbooks was brought up a long time ago in a thread about the old Spell Compendium and it is that a lot of the Paizo designers worked on the 3.5 splatbooks and they don't want to rehash work they have already done.
While I agree that Hasbro is more likely than not to abuse IP law to attack a rival, my second point about designers rehashing their previous work is key here. I think that the desire to do something new would naturally cause whatever Paizo could come up with to have the necessary transformative elements to be protected a separate derivative work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the mention. Yes, we actually did a warlock-like class called the Invoker. Funny this thread came up because I actually got online to post an updated version of the Invoker with new content and some corrections that were covered in errata previously.
We didn't want to do a STRAIGHT warlock rebuild, so it has some changes. The spirit is still there. We added to it and integrated a roleplaying aspect (pacts and taboos) but the way it plays will be very familiar to those who enjoyed the 3.5 class.
Of note, there is a specific section in the PDF on how to make an invoker play in a similar fashion to a 3.5 warlock.
Check it out: The Invoker