|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:15AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
We don't know exactly what class features the 5e wizard class is going to have but both warlocks and sorcerers used spell books in 4e - in the form of rituals. There is nothing about any of these classes that is so set in stone that they could not plop them all under one umbrella. In 2e, the channeller (pre-cursor of the sorcerer) was a wizard. None of the warlock spells are so iconic that a wizard could not or should not gain access to them. Most of the differences were put there by the designers to deliberately distinguish the class from the wizard class, not to meet any literary requirements (beyond having a magical patron who grants power). Doctor Strange, the Sorceror Supreme, gains much of his power from pacts.
However, the warlock, like the warlord, is a very popular class. It has a lot of design potential with different pacts and themes based around them. I don't think there is any reason why it couldn't be folded into the wizard, but they must be aware that they can milk the class for all it's worth. I suspect strongly that it will be its own class.
I could be wrong, but I don't think either of them get ritual casting as a class feature.
Wizard (arcansit) and sorcerer do; warlock and wizard (mage) don't. Swordmages can obtain ritual casting or a spell book via feats. Nothing about the classes historically, thematically, or mechanically suggests that there is anything wierd about an arcane class having a spell or ritual book. Our 25-year old campaign features a highly intelligent knight who in earlier editions, multiclassed into wizard so he could dabble in divinations. In 4e, he multiclassed into bard with the feat that granted ritual casting and the character concept remains the same. In 5e, I don't doubt that there will be some kind of theme that will allow him to do something similar. Even sorcerors have previously been able to learn spells from books. It's just design choice that determines the mechanics.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 10:17AM
#52
|
|
|
I haven't played a 4e sorcerer in a while, I'm not surprised that I forgot about it having ritual casting.
And while I can see warlocks having some kind of grimoire, I can't imagine it being the same kind of list of arcane formulas that a wizard uses.
I'd see it more as a powerful artifact from which the warlock draws power and learns secrets. I guess the real point is that I just don't see warlocks casting spells, as such. That's what sets the warlock apart, to me. They don't memorize formulaic spells, they dig deeper into the forbidden secrets of the universe, and use that dangerous knowledge, combined with eldritch power granted by a patron, to blast their enemies with death and do other, sometimes disturbing magical feats.
I imagine it like someone that found a book like the necronomicon, and instead of being driven mad, learned it's secrets and used them to gain eldritch power.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 10:53AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
There is nothing wrong with adopting that view but it's largely fluff. There is no strict reason why a 4e warlock can't be refluffed to have a book of fey spells rather than a fey patron. My own warlock/assassin hybrid gains her assassin powers from the study of shadow magic and her warlock powers because her soul was tainted by blackflame when we played Baltron's Beacon. No patron is involved and her fluff is more akin to sorcery from that perspective. In 2e she was a wizard, then a wizard (shadow mage) then in 3e she was a sorcerer. Her fluff has never changed.
In the same way the basic 4e two-weapon ranger is almost entirely divorced from the wilderness warrior of 1e and 2e it is always possible to take one of the basic 4 classes and apply a theme, or several themes over time to turn them into any one of any number of previous classes/paragon paths/prestige classes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:38AM
#54
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with adopting that view but it's largely fluff. There is no strict reason why a 4e warlock can't be refluffed to have a book of fey spells rather than a fey patron. My own warlock/assassin hybrid gains her assassin powers from the study of shadow magic and her warlock powers because her soul was tainted by blackflame when we played Baltron's Beacon. No patron is involved and her fluff is more akin to sorcery from that perspective. In 2e she was a wizard, then a wizard (shadow mage) then in 3e she was a sorcerer. Her fluff has never changed.
In the same way the basic 4e two-weapon ranger is almost entirely divorced from the wilderness warrior of 1e and 2e it is always possible to take one of the basic 4 classes and apply a theme, or several themes over time to turn them into any one of any number of previous classes/paragon paths/prestige classes.
If 5e uses a few base classes and themes to try to represent all the classes that have been in DnD, I'm not buying. Period. I put up with that style of game in the Star Wars Saga system because it's a bit better than the revised core rules (basically star wars 3.5) and I want to play Star Wars. I'm not putting up with that model for DnD. 4e is already really good. I'd rather just stick with what I have.
So while, yes, you can reflavor things, the warlock has always also had it's own mechanics that are different from the wizard, and should continue to.
The warlock should no more be a kind of wizard than the rogue should be a kind of fighter.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:46AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
The warlock should no more be a kind of wizard than the rogue should be a kind of fighter.
...mostly because the Warlock is essentially an arcane Paladin.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 1:03PM
#56
|
|
|
The warlock should no more be a kind of wizard than the rogue should be a kind of fighter.
...mostly because the Warlock is essentially an arcane Paladin.
wait, what?
please explain.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 1:26PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
please explain.
High combat, low (mostly arcane) 'magic'.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:22PM
#58
|
|
|
please explain.
High combat, low (mostly arcane) 'magic'.
how is the warlock low magic? it's entirely magic, in almost any thing I've ever seen a warlock.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 3:27PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
please explain.
High combat, low (mostly arcane) 'magic'.
how is the warlock low magic? it's entirely magic, in almost any thing I've ever seen a warlock.
So it is a Wizard?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 3:53PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
The warlock has not always had its own mechanics. In 1e is was a 9th level wizard (I think). The Warlocks of Rookroost was a wizards guild. Warlocks have had their own mechanics only since late 3.5e when they gave them their own mechanics. They kept warlocks and warlords in 4e because they were popular ideas. In 4e warlocks can be built as effective melee characters but that isn't how the class was designed initially. This is one of the reasons why I suspect that warlock will indeed be its own class with various pacts as themes, including themes that will help build hexblade, swordmage, and bladesinger classes and lots more besides. The basic warlock will probably just get some curses a bit like wizards' cantrips, an at-will power option, and perhaps shadow walk alongside their level related spell slots. I suspect witch type characters will be buildable as any arcane class with more specific curses.
|
|
|
