| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically the Warlock will be succeeded by the Kineticist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, one exists in this game, the other doesn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only one problem...he states a lot of things as "historical fact" that are anything but....
Sounds more like modern neo-pagan propaganda than history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There really is no difference at all between a Witch and a Warlock.
Technically, Witch is a gender-neutral term that applies just as easily to men as it does women.
However, many real-life Witches (or rather, those accused of being them) were women, and so the term is often taken to be a feminine word.
Warlock, a synonym for Wizard, Witch, and Sorcerer, is often considered the masculine counterpart to Witch. Then again, Wizard is also given as a masculine form of Witch... English is a very odd language.
Recently (mostly in the last few decades), the term Wizard has been given a generally-good connotation, while Warlock retains its generally-negative/evil connotation.
Basically, it's often given as this:
Wizard - Wizardess
Sorcerer - Sorceress
Warlock - Witch
---
In D&D terms, a Witch and a Warlock are two vastly different classes; the Witch is a spellcaster who focuses on debuffing her enemies, while the Warlock is a non-caster that uses blasts of magical energy and a few spammable spell-like tricks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Warlock from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 was a one trick pony, but it was a hell of a trick!
Unless you meant it as a pun, it was far from a hell of a trick. The developers of 3rd edition were ridiculously terrified by the thought of at-will powers and neutered the Warlock's blast to the degree that, unless they were spamming Chill Tentacles or using that one Hideous Blow build that could actually deal real damage, they were just as much of a joke as non-chain-tripper fighters.
Also, pendantic stuff about the terminology where Warlock and Witch are both historically gender neutral terms that have little to do with each other.
Yeah, one exists in this game, the other doesn't.
Not quite true. There is a D&D 3.5 Warlock, found in Complete Arcane. It is "technically" compatible. :)
It's main attack was a ray that scaled in damage as you level and by which you could add special properties. It is very much like the alchemist bombs now. They also received a choice of SP and SU abilities as you leveled, much like the current witch hexes.
If you aren't talking about the actual classes, then I would agree that the common definition now is Warlock is a male Witch.
Only slightly on topic...but have we heard anything more about the Cannibal Warlock ?
The Warlock from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 was a one trick pony, but it was a hell of a trick!Unless you meant it as a pun, it was far from a hell of a trick. The developers of 3rd edition were ridiculously terrified by the thought of at-will powers and neutered the Warlock's blast to the degree that, unless they were spamming Chill Tentacles or using that one Hideous Blow build that could actually deal real damage, they were just as much of a joke as non-chain-tripper fighters.
Yeah, the warlock was rather underpowered unless you applied copious amounts of system mastery and a few rules tricks a lot of DMs would be wary of allowing like extending the Hellfire Warlock past three levels using bloodlines or certain special PrCs. And really, if you're willing to break out that many tricks, why not break something stronger, like the CoDzilla? For that matter, the one really nasty warlock build I came up with depended on getting 9-level cleric casting for a lot of its tricks...
Some interesting historical tid bit's.....
The term Witch was in it's earliest usage (Germanic) referring to a strictly supernatural being (not a living mortal). A being who caused harm to humans (especially children) cattle and field....and would often torment people over a period of time.
Over time the idea evolved that they could also "posses" (for lack of a better term) someone and work through them to cause harm. Interestingly, early stories hold the person manipulated in this manner innocent by the community.
Still later, we begin to see the idea that mortals can also learn "witch craft" to curse and cause harm to the community, and eventually the original harmful spirit seems to fade from folklore, and the idea that a witch is generally a mortal takes over.
The idea of a "good witch" is a strictly modern invention, not attested to in any older folklore.
The term Warlock, is likewise not specifically attached to the idea of a "male witch" until reasonably modern time...
No where in folklore is the term warlock ever used to indicate an "oath breaker"...and the idea that it is related to the term wearlog appears no where prior to Tolkien stating it as a possible Germanic root word that the Scott's adopted.
Yeah, one exists in this game, the other doesn't.
That's about the size of it, yeah. I'm hoping Dreamscarred will do a good re-do of it, at-will blasts and all.
Yeah, one exists in this game, the other doesn't.That's about the size of it, yeah. I'm hoping Dreamscarred will do a good re-do of it, at-will blasts and all.
The kineticist from the upcoming Occult Adventures was, in the playtest, as close to a reskin of the Warlock as you could expect. The final version should prove to be better, hopefully, and thus, more inline with Pathfinder's power level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I find particularly funny is that the article asserts that the word's origin meant "Oath-Breaker" and the 4th and 5th edition Warlocks are about forging pacts with some kind of powerful entity, they get power from an Oath.
I do remember there was THIS a while back. No clue when that book comes out though.
I do remember there was THIS a while back. No clue when that book comes out though.
They completed the fund raiser...but I have not heard anything about it since....wouldn't mind hearing how that went either...:(
What I find particularly funny is that the article asserts that the word's origin meant "Oath-Breaker" and the 4th and 5th edition Warlocks are about forging pacts with some kind of powerful entity, they get power from an Oath.
It's far more likely that the Scott's term "Warlock" comes from the Scandinavian term "varÝlokkur" or "spirit chanter/binder".
This fit's all aspects of etymological and folklore usage.
The kineticist from the upcoming Occult Adventures was, in the playtest, as close to a reskin of the Warlock as you could expect.Yeah, one exists in this game, the other doesn't.That's about the size of it, yeah. I'm hoping Dreamscarred will do a good re-do of it, at-will blasts and all.
That's why I'm hoping Dreamscarred Press will do it. They have a better handle on PF's power level than PF does a lot of the time.
The warlock is well designed.
Which warlock?
Witches of PF and Warlocks of 3.5 are two very different things.
The only common element, up to a point, is the "unlimited" recource mechanism of Eldritch Blast/Invocations and the Hexes. Although the later is sometimes limited to once/creature/day.
As a question of power, the witch, as a 9th lvl prepared caster with a solid spell list, comes way ahead.
As far as theme goes, I dont really know if the witch is the offspring of the warlock. Witches study with their familiars and are guided by their patrons. The 3.5 warlock was a descendant of an X supernatural being that gave him an "unlimited power", that he had to control.
Do you have any references for these statements? A lot of them contradict the resources listed in the article's bibliography, and if there's a reliable source I could look at I'd be more than happy to edit for accuracy.
Thanks!
For witch lore, the most easily obtained academic sources would be Claude Lecouteux- Witches werewolves and fairies (he includes an extensive bibliography of extant sources if your interested in the original stories, or translations of... if an english speaker)
and Eva Poc's also has several books covering the topic....however her focus is more on Hungarian (which actually matches the Scandinavian/Germanic closely at least in early examples).You want to look at sources that are pre-medieval first, as the medieval period is where many of the changes in perception occur.
To my knowledge, no one has done a specific/indepth study of the Scott's term warlock...so you have to do a bit more research under your own power. There was an etymological paper done by a linguist in the early 2000, addressing the unlikelyhood that the term evolved from "oath breaker. I'll try and find you a link to the full article....here is an excerpt as an example....
" 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."
Beyond that it's really a matter of simply looking at Scott's lore, and later english translations that use the term "warlock"....there is not a single case that an argument can be made for a meaning of "oathbreaker" and no example of that meaning prior to Tolkien's entries to that effect ;)
EDIT: BTW just checked his sources....none of which are considered "reliable" academic sources.
Witches of PF and Warlocks of 3.5 are two very different things.
The only common element, up to a point, is the "unlimited" recource mechanism of Eldritch Blast/Invocations and the Hexes. Although the later is sometimes limited to once/creature/day.As a question of power, the witch, as a 9th lvl prepared caster with a solid spell list, comes way ahead.
As far as theme goes, I dont really know if the witch is the offspring of the warlock. Witches study with their familiars and are guided by their patrons. The 3.5 warlock was a descendant of an X supernatural being that gave him an "unlimited power", that he had to control.
Now it would be best to up the Warlock if brought to Pathfinder. The way I don't know, but just a little something is needed (no nerf though).
It's not "he" it's "you," I'm the author of the piece, hence why I said I'd like to fact check if it turns out what I had is not accurate.
Titles have been noted. Is any of this info up online somewhere so I could check it immediately rather than going through the library to get books?
In general good information is not available online...so I don't do a lot of tracking internet sources, with the exception of the occasional thing that's pointed out to me by friends. I do know that both Claudes books, and Eva Poc's book are available usually at local libraries.
If you want solid academic information...with the exception of some colleges, and a few organizations, that make solid material available on line from time to time....it's best to steer clear of the internet ;)
If you are/or know a college student...their libraries tend to have better access than most public libraries, and will even do loans to other schools. I'll look up the names of specific documents/folk tales, and perhaps you can find translations of some of them on line ;)
Literature/Comics/History .... Keep in mind that in many cases the words Wizard/Sorcerer/Witch/Warlock/Magus have all described the exact same kind of character. It's only in the context of Pathfinder that they have different meanings.
Not entirely true...
Historically many cultures use a wide number of specific terms that address specific differences in "magic specialists" within the culture.Example: "Wizards come from Vili, Sorcerers and Warlocks come from Vé" (Norse). They are using specific titles to address at least perceived differences in how these individuals practice/work/sometimes gender.
You see the same thing across all of Europe, and just about every other culture I have researched.. with very specialized titles for a wide range of specialists.
It's not until after conversion that they are all dumped into the same pot so to speak ;)
Of the existing classes, the Shaman, and possibly the Medium, and Spiritualist, come closest to the Scott's version of a warlock.
As far as replicating the 3.5 Warlock, which seems to be the goal of many...does the Keneticist miss the mark grossly ???
As far as replicating the 3.5 Warlock, which seems to be the goal of many...does the Keneticist miss the mark grossly ???
It's basically the same class mechanically. I don't think it misses the mark, it just needs to be stronger than it was in the playtest.
Only resource I've got time and money for, sadly.
I'll try and dig a bit deeper. Thanks for the road sign; now to see if I can follow it.
Don't be afraid to dig into the etymology of the word "witch" as well. Or the etymology of the word "warlock" in your searching. Then note that, technically, "Wicca" is a masculine word.
There's a lot of different research involved, but what I've found suggests the etymologies I linked are considered the most accurate. And that's ignoring the neopagan circles.
That's part of why a lot of modern witches hate the term "warlock."
For replicating the Warlock, I think the Kineticist is the closest we'll see from Paizo. It may be easier to just do a straight conversion from 3.5.
That's part of why a lot of modern witches hate the term "warlock."
Only American neo-pagans. In Scotland the majority of male neo-pagans use the term Warlock ;)
Even in early modern Witch trads, the term was not associated with "oathbreaker"...that came about in the early eighties after American wiccans stumbled across dictionary references based on Tolkien's entries in the Oxford Dictionary (and I know this because I was involved in the discussions BTW).
The real hurdles are that
A) The term was in use prior to strong influence on Gaelic language by English.
B) The term appears to have more of an Icelandic origin, and since the Scott's had exposure to that language earlier than English, that would be a more plausible source.
C) And most importantly, from a semantic position, the Scott's never used the term to actually refer to an "oathbreaker". No where is there a single example of that meaning by the people who actually used the term.
It is entirely possible that the English, when hearing the Scott's use the term Warlock associated it with their word for oathbreaker....but it was certainly not what the Scott's meant when the used the term ;)
That's part of why a lot of modern witches hate the term "warlock."Only American neo-pagans. In Scotland the majority of male neo-pagans use the term Warlock ;)
Even in early modern Witch trads, the term was not associated with "oathbreaker"...that came about in the early eighties after American wiccans stumbled across dictionary references based on Tolkien's entries in the Oxford Dictionary (and I know this because I was involved in the discussions BTW).
The real hurdles are that
A) The term was in use prior to strong influence on Gaelic language by English.
B) The term appears to have more of an Icelandic origin, and since the Scott's had exposure to that language earlier than English, that would be a more plausible source.
C) And most importantly, from a semantic position, the Scott's never used the term to actually refer to an "oathbreaker". No where is there a single example of that meaning by the people who actually used the term.It is entirely possible that the English, when hearing the Scott's use the term Warlock associated it with their word for oathbreaker....but it was certainly not what the Scott's meant when the used the term ;)
Sources for the majority usage of it by Scottish neo-pagans and the term coming about in the early 80s?
Not that I don't believe you, but if I have this conversation with anyone else and cite you as a source, your credibility would be shredded as just being a name on a screen. I will admit I'm also not certain I believe the Scottish one, but it may just be the Scottish neo-pagans I've met and not the majority.
Sources for the majority usage of it by Scottish neo-pagans and the term coming about in the early 80s?
Not that I don't believe you, but if I have this conversation with anyone else and cite you as a source, your credibility would be shredded as just being a name on a screen. I will admit I'm also not certain I believe the Scottish one, but it may just be the Scottish neo-pagans I've met and not the majority.
Sources of Scott's usage by modern neo-pagans are easy to find on the internet...just punch in the term warlock...or reclaiming warlock...and you will find a gaggle of pages dedicated to the topic.
As far as usage prior to the eighties...it's not the term warlock coming about in the eighties...it's large scale adoption of the idea that it means "oathbreaker". Prior to the eighties, it's more a matter of LACK of usage (ie: warlock = oathbreaker).
Doreen Valiente and Gardner both use the term in their early writtings...but in the sense of a "binding"...which is not specifically in conflict with earlier Scott's usage, although it's a very one sided usage.
As it was used by the Scott's, it could refer to the act of attracting/binding a spirit to service...or blocking/barring them (as in the use of the term Warlocking...to protect something from spirits)or it's use in some place where spirits where bound (eg: a warlocked glade).
In other words, you can't cite "a source" for "it wasn't used to mean oathbreaker"....when it wasn't used to mean oathbreaker ;)
Generally when people (ie: wiccanate types) go that route with me (which they often do), I ask them to show me a single example in Scott's lore (or actually any lore)where it IS used to mean oathbreaker. To date, no one has been able to come up with a single example prior to modern times.
However, when all is said and done...people will believe what they want to believe. I'll keep using the meaning my culture uses....and if modern neo-pagans want to think I mean "oathbreaker" if I use the term....it really doesn't matter ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sources of Scott's usage ...
I have to speak up because as someone of Scots ancestry this is really setting my teeth on edge.
A Scott is a person whose name is Scott. "Scott's" means something that belongs to a person named Scott, as in "That is Scott's car."
A Scot is a person of the Scottish nationality. The plural is "Scots" but the term Scots can also be used in place of "Scottish." Scots is also the name of the dialect of English that was once spoken in the lowland and Borders regions of Scotland up until the 19th century or so. Robbie Burns' poetry is written in Scots.
I suspect your use of "Scott's" when you mean "Scots" may be an a artifact of an autocorrect feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as far as Warlocks in D&D/PF goes...
In 1e I used the word as a convenient term to refer to a fighter-magic-user. This has no particular basis in historical usage, but it worked for our group as "warlock" was definitely associated with magic, but the fact that the word begins with "war" evokes the image of a fighting wizard.
For the record, "wizard" has also historically been used as a male version of "witch," though witch does not necessarily imply females. A third of the "witches" executed at Salem were men.
The Hebrew word that gets translated as "witch" in the Old Testament actually basically means "someone who poisons wells." This was obviously very serious in a desert environment. It didn't necessarily mean a practitioner of magic. However, the manufacture of poisons kind of falls under alchemy, which was close enough to magic for most folks.
I have to speak up because as someone of Scots ancestry this is really setting my teeth on edge.
And rightfully so...apologies.
I wish I could blame it on auto correct, but the plain simple truth is that when I am more focused on the content than the presentation...my dyslexia tends to creep in :(As the name doesn't trigger an auto-correct response...I didn't even notice.
Tha mi duilich