| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I am a Brazilian Game Designer, and a veteran d&d and pathfinder player.
I am also a huge fan of the current design of PF2E, as it fits very well with the design philosophy I like, and created a system that is perfect to the kind of games I like to DM or play.
Because of that, I decided to put some of my experience as a designer to use and started making some content for PF2E.
Here is my first full released class, 1 to 20.
It is still in beta version, as I will be doing more tests on different levels, and gathering more feedback to improve balance and create more interesting choices.
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/warlock-class-pf2e-compatible
All criticism is welcome, both here or via email to michael@arcanogames.com.br
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A REVISION, UPDATE OR VERSION OF THE 3.5 WARLOCK CLASS!
This Warlock Class represents a hero or villain that pursue dark and forbidden arts, forgotten ancient evil knowledge, and all kind of sources of power to obtain what they wish, be its ends noble or dark.
This is my view on the concept that drinks from many sources, some in common with the sources used for the 3.5 Warlock, and others completely different.
So please don't expect to make a comparison with that Warlock, as it will not work.
Thank you, and I hope this proves to be fun to some people wanting to play a character that delves into dark and forbidden arts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great. I will have a look on that
Critiques and suggestions on improvements are welcome. =D
I made some small updates to the class.
Still looking for more opinions on improvements. =D
First thing, you should give something besides an feat level 1 with the DARK PATH maybe a small benefit/medium benefit. I mean there's no difference between taking Unhollower and Leeching Curse and Hexer and Profane Empowerment, in this case i would rather not get a level 1 feat and get the path with some cool benefits along the way.
Also maybe is just me but i feel as if he should get LEGENDARY WARLOCK only on a path and instead change proficiencies based on a DARK path?
One should probably get legendary on will saves, the other i am not sure...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First thing, you should give something besides an feat level 1 with the DARK PATH maybe a small benefit/medium benefit. I mean there's no difference between taking Unhollower and Leeching Curse and Hexer and Profane Empowerment, in this case i would rather not get a level 1 feat and get the path with some cool benefits along the way.
Also maybe is just me but i feel as if he should get LEGENDARY WARLOCK only on a path and instead change proficiencies based on a DARK path?
One should probably get legendary on will saves, the other i am not sure...
The idea is that you must start with 1 of three feats "Dark Empowerment", "Leeching Curse" or "Call Demonic Servant", and your free level 1 talent can be any of the five initial talents.
This way you are free to build your warlock the way you want. You can be "pet + curses" or "curses + bolt" or "full-on curses" or "full-on bolt".
Creating unique benefits would make you "locked" into a build as soon as you made the initial choice. I tried to give more options, by letting you build your own warlock using the many different blocks.
Yet if you want you can build a straight "pet build" or "curse build" or "bolt build" by going after all talents that complement each of those styles.
At each level there is at least 1 talent that was made for each of the 3 different builds, so you can be a pure Hexer or a pure Uhollower, but you can also be your own kind of warlock.
I felt that by giving a unique feature I would remove choices.
On the other hand, I understand that sometimes interesting choices of game design are made by creating restrictions. So I will think about that.
About different proficiencies, no other class do that, I think it would confuse players. I would only do that if it was very necessary to class fantasy or to game mechanic, and here is not exactly the case for that.
What you think about my answers?
Why you feel that the Dark Paths must give more unique features? I am very interested in why you felt like that. If you can give me more info I will be very grateful.
The game design process is always a process of playtesting and improving, so you can count on my work to further improve and make it reach a quality that honors the amazing work that the Paizo Designers did for PF2E.
I can see the idea now. It's just that the paths in pf2 always were so meaningful. I mean fighters and monks are the only ones that lack one and they both compensate by being overall a bit less locked.
But I don't feel like the warlock is quite a bit free to invest with the rest of the feats. Might be just me though.
I just feel like instead of "DARK PATH" just grant a feat if that's the only thing. A path should be meaningful IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the idea now. It's just that the paths in pf2 always were so meaningful. I mean fighters and monks are the only ones that lack one and they both compensate by being overall a bit less locked.
But I don't feel like the warlock is quite a bit free to invest with the rest of the feats. Might be just me though.
I just feel like instead of "DARK PATH" just grant a feat if that's the only thing. A path should be meaningful IMO.
I understand your point!
The idea was to be closer to the fighter like you pointed.
Do you believe this version of the class is not allowing the same freedom fighter and monks has?
Can you point me some examples of how fighter does this better?
If this is lacking I will surely try to fix it because it was one of the design concepts behind the game design of this class, I did not wish to create "locked paths" but enable players to pick the abilities they most desire. (With few exceptions and "trees" of requisites, but I was on the impression that they were not more common than on fighter or monk, but I might be wrong here.)
Thank you again. =D
It's nothing, it's nice to be able to talk to the dev and help them ^^
Okay i will take everything in from the feats and send back what i feel later probably during the weekend. ^^
Edit: Also calling two friends to help me with it so probably will be a long post soon.
It's nothing, it's nice to be able to talk to the dev and help them ^^
Okay i will take everything in from the feats and send back what i feel later probably during the weekend. ^^
Edit: Also calling two friends to help me with it so probably will be a long post soon.
I am still waiting for your feedback. =D
If anyone else has any critiques or suggestions feel free to do so, as it will be very useful for me to improve the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the sub-class do anything besides give you an extra feat? I like the flavors, but don't see any real difference.
Does the profane tag do anything? Seems like Manifestation has a few uses, but is there a reason your avoiding "invocation"?
Flourish seems like it should be added to a number of these things. Or probably better, have include the 1/round and 1/target in the Manifestation (or invocation) definition.
Any reason a why not to use the base familiar rules? Or Summon Fiend?
I would remove the Curse Affinity stacking. Either put the features in the base class, or as part of the sub-class.
I would generally structure the curses as
Critical Success: No effect.
Success: 1 round
Failed: 1 minute
Critical failed: permanent (until Remove curse / curse breaker).
Terrifying Gaze seems like it should boost to Demoralize.
Curse of Slothfulness might be too much.
Profane armour seems like it should just be 3 actions. Profane Protection reduce it to 2 actions.
Thank you for the great feedback Mellored.
Let me answer some of your questions:
Does the sub-class do anything besides give you an extra feat? I like the flavors, but don't see any real difference.
The intent here was to create distinct paths that can be followed, but at the same time not lock the player into the concept, freeing it to get the abilities to build the warlock as it wants.
On the downside, some may feel that this initial option is not strongly thematically tied to the mechanics.
On the upside, mechanically it offers more build diversity for the players to try the class.
Another consequence of this design choice is that I can be sure that the player will pick at least one of the three main Feats for the class. This was important to reduce "trap builds" that can be frustrating when you offer too much choice without guidance.
So it was more of a design choice them anything else.
Maybe I should give a very small, maybe more flavor them combat-oriented advantage to each one of the three initial choices, what you think about that?
Does the profane tag do anything? Seems like Manifestation has a few uses, but is there a reason your avoiding "invocation"?
I did not want to invoke the idea that I was rebuilding 3.5 or 5e Warlock. And I wanted it to feel less "spellcaster" and more "power wielder", so I used the term Manifestation instead of Invocation.
The Profane Tag was there just to make clear that those powers were not from an Arcane, Primal, Divine or Occult source. Maybe I should make this more clear and straightforward as a rule?
I also wanted to add it so that in the future, monsters, items, and new feats could be developed to interact with the Warlock Class without needing to say "a Warlock power" or "damage caused by a Warlock", and things like that.
A monster might have resistance or vulnerability against damage from Profane sources, for example.
Flourish seems like it should be added to a number of these things. Or probably better, have include the 1/round and 1/target in the Manifestation (or invocation) definition.
You are right here, I used "Frequency" a lot, where I could have used Flourish tag. I completely forgot about this tag, thank you for this I will make the appropriate changes soon.
Any reason a why not to use the base familiar rules? Or Summon Fiend?
They work more like Druid/Ranger pet them as a familiar in combat role. That is why I did it from scratch but based it on the math for animal companions, with the appropriate changes of course.
You feel they were off somewhere?
I would remove the Curse Affinity stacking. Either put the features in the base class, or as part of the sub-class.
They are necessary to make picking more them one curse a viable path for the class.
Each target can only have one of your curses, so why would you have more them one curse? The optimal "curser" would aim to one specific curse, and ignore the others that he would not use, to instead pick other supporting feats.
That can be a choice, but I did not want it to be the only choice by being so massively better. So I added the Curse Affinity.
To work properly they need to stack so that you have a purpose to pick multiple curses.
Remember that Warlocks have no Spells and are not very weapon oriented, so they depend more on their feats them the average classes to reach the same level of power.
Do you think I should maybe nerf the affinities a bit? You believe a build getting all curses and affinities is too powerful in this current version?
I would generally structure the curses as
Critical Success: No effect.
Success: 1 round
Failed: 1 minute
Critical failed: permanent (until Remove curse / curse breaker).
I like your idea here.
I just feel like it will be pretty restrictive on the effects if they are permanent for failed.But as a matter of theme, I agree with you that this would improve the class. I will work on changing this somehow soon. Thanks for the idea.
Terrifying Gaze seems like it should boost to Demoralize.
I wanted it to be independent of skill, and feel more like a mystical fear them an ability to intimidate the enemy.
But mechanically I agree that your solution would be more elegant.
Curse of Slothfulness might be too much.
Can you elaborate? I mean, by how much, or what comparison, just so I can understand how you are seeing it, enabling me to nerf it appropriately.
Profane armour seems like it should just be 3 actions. Profane Protection reduce it to 2 actions.
With three actions it will only be used pre-combat.
It felt punishing for a warlock on a social situation that turns into combat to lose an entire turn to use it.What you think about that?
Again, thank you for the feedback, I will be improving this class.
As anyone that has worked as game designer knows, things will not come out perfect on the first versions, and public opinion is the best to help know where we should improve on the game design of something. (PF2E itself changed a lot from beta to final version, so I am sure this class will change too before it can reach the level of fine-tuning that PF2E classes have right now.
I will wait for your considerations, and I will try to run some more simulations and play and DM with a warlock on the game this week and they make a huge balancing and improving pass on the class.
All critiques and advice will be greatly appreciated.
Does the sub-class do anything besides give you an extra feat? I like the flavors, but don't see any real difference.The intent here was to create distinct paths that can be followed, but at the same time not lock the player into the concept, freeing it to get the abilities to build the warlock as it wants.
Nothing wrong with it being a feat that any warlock can grab (cleric does this). But if that is the only feature, I don't see a need for sub-classes at all. Fighter for instance, doesn't have any.
Maybe something like...
Chronic Wound Hex (level 1, all warlocks): You mark the target, making it more susceptible to your attacks.
1 action.
Duration: 1 minute.
When you deal damage to the target, it takes 1/2/3/4 (based on level) persistent damage damage of the same type. If the Hex ends so does the persistent damage.
Diabloist: You start with the Call Demonic Servant Warlock Feat.
Your summons also triggers your warlocks hex.
Hexer: You star with Leeching Curse Warlock Feat. When you successfuly cast a Curse, you trigger your warlocks hex.
Unhollower: You start with the Profane Empowerment Warlock Feat. Increase the die size of Profane Bolt against hexed targets.
Then remove the level 1 warlock feat choice.
Hmm... actually I think something that just deals persistent damage would be more flavorful. (Didn't do any balance check here...)
Chronic Wound Hex: Blood starts seeping out of your target.
Cantrip, 2 actions.
The target takes persistent bleed damage equal to your X modifier. If the target is already suffering from Chronic Wounds, increase the persistent damage by Y. This can stack multiple times, but all stacks end on a successful save.
(heighted 1+): Increase the initial and persistent damage and the increased damage by Z.
Diabloist: You start with the Call Demonic Servant Warlock Feat. Creatures suffering from Chronic Wounds are flat-footed for your summon.
Hexer: You star with Leeching Curse Warlock Feat. When you cast a Curse, you can cast Chronic Wounds Hex as a single action against the same target.
Unhollower: You gain Profane Empowerment. ....some bonus with chronic wounds...
Seems ok that warlocks aren't good against constructs and elementals.
If I'm changing too much, feel free to ignore my suggestions. Just really liking the "damage over time" idea.
I did not want to invoke the idea that I was rebuilding 3.5 or 5e Warlock. And I wanted it to feel less "spellcaster" and more "power wielder", so I used the term Manifestation instead of Invocation.
3.5 warlock was very much a "power wielder". Here is the description.
"Invocations: A warlock does not prepare or cast spells as other wielders of arcane magic do. Instead, he possesses a repertoire of attacks, defenses, and abilities known as invocations that require him to focus the wild energy that suffuses his soul. A warlock can use any invocation he knows at will, with the following qualifications:
A warlock's invocations are spell-like abilities; using an invocation is therefore a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity"
The Profane Tag was there just to make clear that those powers were not from an Arcane, Primal, Divine or Occult source. Maybe I should make this more clear and straightforward as a rule?
Ehh... I would just remove the tag. Monk doesn't have any tag for ki.
I also wanted to add it so that in the future, monsters, items, and new feats could be developed to interact with the Warlock Class without needing to say "a Warlock power" or "damage caused by a Warlock", and things like that.
I don't think there is any feature that takes damage from "divine" or "arcane" spells. Nor do I think there are there any class specific items. And I don't think there should be.
So I would just stick with the the tags that already exist. Like Mental, Curse, Negative.They work more like Druid/Ranger pet them as a familiar in combat role. That is why I did it from scratch but based it on the math for animal companions, with the appropriate changes of course.
I didn't look at the numbers. Just trying to avoid duplicate rules.
So if it is based off the animal, I would just say "treat it like an Animal Companions, but a demon" and any other exceptions.Each target can only have one of your curses, so why would you have more them one curse? The optimal "curser" would aim to one specific curse, and ignore the others that he would not use, to instead pick other supporting feats.
I would allow multiple curses, just for that reason. So if you give someone enfeebled 1 for 1 minute, you can hit them again with clumsy 1.
If you want enfeebled 2, then hit twice.Or hit twice for dazzled->blind.
Maybe a "target gets +2 to saves for each curse it is already under" to counter the penalty to saves you would be taking. But I think if you let a warlock repeatedly cast at you, then getting constantly weaker makes sense.
I just feel like it will be pretty restrictive on the effects if they are permanent for failed.
A number of days equal to your warlock level? At least a day.
Can you elaborate? I mean, by how much, or what comparison, just so I can understand how you are seeing it, enabling me to nerf it appropriately.
slowed 1 and Clumsy 2 for 1 minute is way to much for a single failed save that you can cast at-will.
But if you failed 3 saves over 3 turns, then sure (slowed 1, clumsy 1, clumsy 2).With three actions it will only be used pre-combat.
Sorry, I was suggesting 3 actions, but increase the time limit to something like 24 hours. So it can be up for all battles. Just seems a little awkward as it is now.
...
Great reply!
I will start to work on a revised version by tomorrow, and in the next days, I will update the article and the post.
I agree with many of your propositions, I will run some math on this, and will take some other game design questions into consideration.
I like the idea of increasing the "Damage over Time" aspect of the class even further. But I still want to keep build diversity very open, so probably I will create a fourth path that enables you to take two feats at level one but loses the new feature that the other three paths will work around with, or something similar to that.
I just don't want it to be about 3 possible "builds". I want to have some intuitive "builds" that you can make by picking feats related to one "path" thematically, like "picking all demonic servant feats" for example, but still have the freedom to mix things and pick whatever makes more sense to build your own warlock, be that for story reasons or optimization ones, as both are engaging IMO.
About the Animal Companions, I used them as base for the mathematical worth and balance, but they have pretty different status then standard companions.
One of the big differences is that Demonic Servants are intelligent, and are very good at some skills. They can help in a more diverse number of things outside of combat.
In combat, the three different Servants have very different roles, one being a "mini-rogue", the second being a "mini-warrior", and the last one being a "mini-wizard". Each one can help fill a role but are not good enough to do it on their own. Yet it creates interesting decisions as the same warlock may play differently in different parties or in different situations if he has a Demonic Servant.
I still need to run better numbers on them to fine-tune their balance, but I believe that they deserve their own rules so that they can be really different from companions and familiars. They are much less about giving you a bonus or helping you, and much more about specialized minions that do their job when commanded.
Not that this is better or worse, just different, as I see the potential interaction between a warlock and his servants as less of a bond of trust and cooperation, and more a forceful control over demonic being with its own intellect.
If you see anything else that you want to comment please feel free, I will revise the class and post it when I am done.
Your help was very much appreciated, and with it, I will greatly improve the class.
One last thing , after all those discussions at the topic about Casters and Martials, I believe we are in dire need of guides and at last some partially optimized builds, so we can, at last, have a common ground of discussion for further things. Maybe I will give a try at writing one, but it will require that I deeply study the class. Any suggestion on one we are in more dire need of information? I am between writing a Fighter one, but I had seen a guide made by RPGBOT, or make a Barbarian one. I believe we need a baseline melee character first. Your opinion on this will also be much appreciated.
Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't want it to be about 3 possible "builds". I want to have some intuitive "builds" that you can make by picking feats related to one "path" thematically, like "picking all demonic servant feats" for example, but still have the freedom to mix things and pick whatever makes more sense to build your own warlock, be that for story reasons or optimization ones, as both are engaging IMO.
Eh... true. My suggestions probably lock in the path a bit too much.
Maybe a skill.Demonoligist: You can use Occultism in place of religion to Recall Knowlege about (celestials, fiends, and undead). +2 bonus to identifying fiends.
Hexer: You can use Occultism to the Identity Magic on any curse. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus when identifying curses.
Unhollower:
About the Animal Companions, I used them as base for the mathematical worth and balance, but they have pretty different status then standard companions.
One of the big differences is that Demonic Servants are intelligent, and are very good at some skills. They can help in a more diverse number of things outside of combat.
If they are more potent than animal companions, then they should have a drawback. Like taking damage for each round they are out. Which would be fitting.
I'd also like to point out the Abyssal Pact and Infernal Pact rituals. Not quite sure what to do with them, but seems like they should be an option somehow.
Revised version of the class is online!
https://www.thegamersage.com/post/warlock-class-pf2e-compatible
All the feedback received on Reddit, Facebook and here was taken into account, and I revised the Class.
I also added a Warlock Dedication Multiclass with all its necessary feats. And now the three distinct Dark Paths have some unique features, without causing them to reduce build diversity.
The class received changes both for balancing reasons and to improve the flavor of the Warlock Class.
I'd like to thank Mellored especially as some of his ideas were great to spark some changes. Some of them I used as he suggested, like permanent effect on Critical Failure at Curse Saving Throws, others I took inspiration on, like his suggestion for a new "DoT" for the class. So again, thank you Mellored. =D
Again, all feedback will be appreciated, as the class certainly can receive further fine-tuning.
Soon I will be releasing more new content. =D
(I accept suggestions on PF2E content to make.)
Those curses still seem off to me. Scaling both duration and effect is a bit off to me.
Here is ray of enfeeblement.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target becomes enfeebled 1. (1 minute)
Failure The target becomes enfeebled 2. (1 minute)
Critical Failure The target becomes enfeebled 3. (1 minute)
And here is blindness
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target is blinded until its next turn begins.
Failure The target is blinded for 1 minute.
Critical Failure The target is blinded permanently.
Those curses still seem off to me. Scaling both duration and effect is a bit off to me.
Scaling duration to permanent has no mechanical impact on combat. It is more flavor them anything. Not scaling would make critical feel less impactful as 99% of the time the enemy will die at the end of the combat anyway. (Or if your group is so good that they have mercy on enemies, now your curse will be a problem that you need to remove.)
Compare it to actual curse spells, and you will see that they do not have lessened effects if compared to spells of their own circle.
Also, remember that the Warlock class is more dependent on its curses them a wizard, that can chose other abilities each day.
Here is ray of enfeeblement.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target becomes enfeebled 1. (1 minute)
Failure The target becomes enfeebled 2. (1 minute)
Critical Failure The target becomes enfeebled 3. (1 minute)And here is blindness
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target is blinded until its next turn begins.
Failure The target is blinded for 1 minute.
Critical Failure The target is blinded permanently.
Note that Blindness has no granularity. You couldn't go "blinded 2".
For simplicity, the game designers added the "permanent" effect just so something happens on a Critical Failure.Blindness is a spell that only matters if the target succeeded or not because permanency is a very low impact mechanically power-wise.
Look at Mariner's Curse and Outcast's curse for example.
Mariner's Curse
Success The target becomes sickened 1. Reducing its sickened condition to 0 ends the curse.
Failure The target becomes sickened 1 and can’t reduce its sickened condition below 1 while the curse remains. The curse can be lifted by remove curse or similar magic. Whenever the target is sickened and on the water at least a mile from shore, it is also slowed 1.
Critical Failure As failure, but the target becomes sickened 2.
The effect gets worse, and the permanency is just an "extra bonus"
If I used the same model, a simple failure would be permanent, with no reduced effect, and the critical failure would worsen the effect. I prefer to make the permanency a critical effect thing because the abilities can be used more often, and friendly-fire would be too punishing.
Because of the specificities of the Warlock as a class, having constant access to the curses, but being locked into needing to use them if you chose them at all, the presented model of curses is the best game design. But I can be wrong, surely.
Think about it this way:
- If you play a warlock and the only effect of a critical failure against your curse is the permanent effect, you will not have the rush of fun and excitement when an enemy rolls a 1, because it changes nothing in your combat.
- If there is no permanent effect, it feels less "curse-y". (Agree with you here)
- If you place the permanent effect on a failed save, like the curses we have as spells so far, any friendly fire with curses will be very harmful.
- There is no other real disadvantage of just placing it on a failed save. But it will be a little more painful to keep track for the GM, and they will feel more powerful then they are mechanically for some people, that might think the effect is "overpower" without comparing with other curses from the book.
I gave it a very long analysis before finishing the revision.
Do you still disagree? Can you point any flaw in my logic or my arguments?
I am not here trying to say that I am right or anything. I am just exposing the logic behind my decision so you can point me where you think it can be improved upon.
Again, thank you for the review Mellored. It is very much appreciated.