So, with the Psionics thread, it seems one of the biggest complaints people are having is "vancian" casting (semantics and such regarding aside) and the "problems" of combining Vancian casting with Power Point systems.
Well, seeing as I doubt Paizo would do a WotC manuever and pretty much steal DSP's Psionic stuff, I think it is highly unlikely we will see a Paizo Psion in the sense people are waiting for (if anything, Paizo would just release a rules change and include DSP Psionics Handbooks as part of its "core-line" for things like PFS)..
So that does leave us with one other "alternate caster" that was actually fairly popular and successful (I am not counting things like ToM and MoI since they only showed up in their respective books) and that is the Warlock.
The warlock was quite intriguing in its casting style and carried some very cool power. Additionally (contrary to popular belief) it was actually pretty well balanced vs most classes (underpowered vs full casters... but who isn't?). With all the class abilities they get, they are also very well suited to being archetyped (which is a huge + for Paizo).
So what do you guys think? Do you guys agree or disagree that the Warlock would be a pretty good addition to PF?
Oh and I forgot to mention, the Warlock does have the advantage for Paizo in that it has mechanics that could easily be transferred to other classes for archetypes (as wel have seen paizo loving to do recently... handing out class features to everybody).
For instance, a Witch gaining the abilit to select invocations in place of hexes.
|
I think Paizo take on the warlock is that you already have a class with at will abilities. The witch, and now the Shaman. Adding real spells to the class arguably makes them better. I do miss having a class with unlimited touch attacks that scale, something the witch and shaman lack, but the gunslinger also provides virtual unlimited touch attacks themselfs, so once again, I think their take on it is that they already have such. Though I would happy take a look at a pathfinder edition warlock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go to the homebrew and conversions forums and search for "warlock". You will find no shortage.
I'll probably just stick with Witch and Shaman. They've got my flavor-bases covered, and hexes are strong and never run out of style.
I'll probably just stick with Witch and Shaman. They've got my flavor-bases covered, and hexes are strong and never run out of style.
The problem is that Hexes and Invocations do very seperate things...
Witches perform and do things people expect of a hex, debuff, a few nifty things like sleep, and some really dumb things like make you a hag. So, very WITCHY things...
The warlock's invocations though are VERY different. For the most part, they actually played like spellcasters are most OTHER novels and such tend to portray things like wizards. They can blast with magical power (Eldritch Blast), they could conjure up swarms and short range teleport (dimension door), they could do a lot of cool stuff like that. But, unlike the wizard and the sorcerer, they can do it at will (which seems much more in line with how most other fantasy novels, movies, and games tend to view wizards vs the "fire and forget" system of Vancian magic)
Unless I am mistaken, the warlock was exempted from the open gaming license along with some of the more iconic D&D monsters (Mind flayers, beholders). Therefore they will never come to pathinfer.
That being said, I think Paizo should create at least one class that, while distinct enough for legal purposes, evokes some of the flavor and mechanical charm of the warlock.
Complicating the issue of a pathfinder warlock substitute is the way in which we as fans ask for one. I think that for corporate/legal reasons Paizo will shy away from answering our requests for a pathfinder 'lock, but if we ask for "A caster who uses unlimited touch spell like abilities", or "A slow progression non-Vancian caster", or an "Alternative mage", our pleading is morel ikely to bear fruit.
Oh and I forgot to mention, the Warlock does have the advantage for Paizo in that it has mechanics that could easily be transferred to other classes for archetypes (as wel have seen paizo loving to do recently... handing out class features to everybody).
For instance, a Witch gaining the abilit to select invocations in place of hexes.
You forget about the Warlock's major disadvantage.....
It's closed content.
Which, in no way, prevents PF from making their own unlimited at-will magic class.
Oh and I forgot to mention, the Warlock does have the advantage for Paizo in that it has mechanics that could easily be transferred to other classes for archetypes (as wel have seen paizo loving to do recently... handing out class features to everybody).
For instance, a Witch gaining the abilit to select invocations in place of hexes.
You forget about the Warlock's major disadvantage.....
It's closed content.
The "warlock class" as it appears in complete arcane in closed content. The word "warlock" is not, nor are the mechanics which govern how the class works. Even if Paizo were worried about stepping on WotC's IP there are certainly ways to replicate the feel of the class that people have continued to clamor for over the past 5 years without calling it "warlock" or calling its primary ability "eldritch blast."
Of course, you have transparently opposed the idea of a Paizo warlock variant for the last 5 years. Even when people point out to you that your talking point on closed content isn't the full-stop issue you are making it out to be.
1. That means you can flavor it however you like. That's a feature, not a bug.
2. Nobody's forcing you to play one.
3. Many people, if they wanted to play a 'pile of debuffs', would rather play the warlock than a witch (myself included).
Thus, your argument has precisely zero (0) legs to stand on.
|
Also if you want ranged touch with special effects tacked on - play an alchemist - its what they DO.
PLUS
It scales with level.
You can alter the damage type.
You can produce it in a variety of aoe effects (or no aoe at all.
Add to that the ability to buff others in THEIR actions not your own (with the infusion discovery) you have a pretty good if not better substitute.
I love the general mechanics of the warlock: at will magical blasting and magics that are generally lower down on the power scale. I disliked the constant flight and invisibility and dimension door, those were annoying at the table whether used by players or NPCs. The simple mechanics were great to run them and made it easy to make cultist NPCs quickly that were easy to run at the table.
I liked the flavor of the class a lot too. Outsider pacts with different flavors than clerics or wizards.
I would like a good implementation for pathfinder with lots of flavorful powers that are not annoying in practice.
I got Adamant Entertainment's version years ago but did not really care for them and have not used them. I remember that some other company did a version of them as well as the truespeakers from Tome of Magic with a few good reviews but I have not checked those out yet.
|
Heh I just use the 3.5 warlock, frankly , don't see much need for conversion. Mostly like to use Warlocks as npc, they are simple to use paperwork wise and with the idea of dealing with fiends, can bring a lot of flavor and interesting encounters. Neverwinter Night 2, did an excellent job of presenting what a high level warlock would be doing.
I didn't think much of the warlock when it first came out in 3.5. It had one trick which it did to death and a package of debuffs. If I wanted a package of debuffs, I'd play a Witch. The Warlock doesn't really fit with the existing classes, most of the other magic classes can be seen as evolutions of classes that closely resemble them. The Warlock is an odd duck with not really much flavor to it.Oh and I forgot to mention, the Warlock does have the advantage for Paizo in that it has mechanics that could easily be transferred to other classes for archetypes (as wel have seen paizo loving to do recently... handing out class features to everybody).
For instance, a Witch gaining the abilit to select invocations in place of hexes.
You forget about the Warlock's major disadvantage.....
It's closed content.
The "warlock class" as it appears in complete arcane in closed content. The word "warlock" is not, nor are the mechanics which govern how the class works. Even if Paizo were worried about stepping on WotC's IP there are certainly ways to replicate the feel of the class that people have continued to clamor for over the past 5 years without calling it "warlock" or calling its primary ability "eldritch blast."
Of course, you have transparently opposed the idea of a Paizo warlock variant for the last 5 years. Even when people point out to you that your talking point on closed content isn't the full-stop issue you are making it out to be.
For what it's worth, I never cared much for the class as a player either. But as a DM I found them to be excellent for quick-stat arcanist NPC's and also useful for newer players who want to branch out into spellcasters but feel overwhelmed by the options of a full caster.
Then, of course, there are all of the folks I recognize that love the class as a goto player option, and my personal PC choices/preferences should not limit theirs in any way. Nor should yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, already you can use cantrips unlimited. So a class that could use a very small list of spells, each unlimited, could be OK. Magic Missile?
The Warlock wasn;t really a very good class. Now the Dragonfire Adept- niiiiice.
Well, already you can use cantrips unlimited. So a class that could use a very small list of spells, each unlimited, could be OK. Magic Missile?
The Warlock wasn;t really a very good class. Now the Dragonfire Adept- niiiiice.
Oh I loved the Dragon fire adept!! It's powers were a little odd but the breath weapons...
Why not just make an Arcanist archetype that sacks its spell casting for massive reservoir and more exploits?
Wait, that's too close to spell points for some people. Never mind.
Edit: That said, I'd perform a live human sacrifice for Dragon Adept and Dragon Shaman equivalents...,
Paizo warlock
You mean a... Paizlock?
I see the warlock as a fairly weak class. Maybe instead of having predetermined SLA's it could choose which spells to make into SLA's it would be better. I don't have an exact idea of how to go about doing that however.
No need PF is backwards compatible you already have the warlock.
That does not mean a GM will allow it until PF makes. I am not a warlock fan. I was just stating why it could be a problem.
Morthos with the beard and the black-and-red armor with the skulls and the purple magic glowing hand was just the absolute best. Image is still burned into my brain after all these years.
Since the warlock is in the Core book for 5e D&D, if the 5e OGL turns out halfway decent any legal obstacles to using the warlock would melt away, since there would be a d20-compatible open-content warlock class. Arguing in court about distinctions between TTRPG editions of the same class will probably be unproductive for WotC.