Is it just me, or is the Warlock popular here?

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
Seriously, it looks like every other thread is about a warlock in this board. Why is that?
56816218 wrote:
What I find most frustrating about 4E is that I can see it includes the D&D game I've always wanted to play, but the game is so lathered in tatical combat rules that I have thus far been unable to coax the game I want out.
When the Cat's a Stray, the Mice will Pray
Seriously, it looks like every other thread is about a warlock in this board. Why is that?

Well, the ideas of getting power from Demons, Fey, Cuthulu, Mr. Rogers, Achoo-thulu, Devils, Mr. Hankey, and Amon are inspiring and fascinating to people.
"If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you." and "Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
Seriously, it looks like every other thread is about a warlock in this board. Why is that?

I chalk a lot of it up to novelty, he's new and different which means he's getting a lot of attention and play.

We haven't seen the same reaction to our other new class, the warlord, but I think that's just because the Warlock is more fertile soil for the creative mind.
I suppose that's true...I've been guilty of dreaming up how an older character of mine (a Kalashtar Shadowcaster) would convert over (Shadar-Kai Warlock...either Star Pact or Fey Pact).
56816218 wrote:
What I find most frustrating about 4E is that I can see it includes the D&D game I've always wanted to play, but the game is so lathered in tatical combat rules that I have thus far been unable to coax the game I want out.
When the Cat's a Stray, the Mice will Pray
Seriously, it looks like every other thread is about a warlock in this board.

It's not just you--I've noticed the same thing.

I'd like to try out a warlock sometime, but it's not the class I'd be most jumping to play. The first 4E character that ever popped into my mind was a fighter, actually.
Once I'm done gushing over the new fighter which totally rocks now (human, dragonborn, and dwarf ftw), I'll move on to a Warlock as that's about as close to a full caster as I want to get. And besides, Eldritch blast kick ass. 4E is more than I hoped it would be, with the exception of a few rules like crits...grrr, and I'm finally glad to be able to move to an entirely modular a quite balanced system. Hell, the fighter is now one of the characters most likely to survive without really even needing a cleric! He can get regen 2+Con mod while bloodied as a stance at level 2 for crying out loud!

P.S. When y'all get the 4.0 MM, check out Orcus. Wayne Reynolds has just made a masterpiece with that badass pic.
Warlock are strikers, hence they do more damage to one person that a Wizard can do. I don't think the damage output is more borken, per se, but it's easier to understand what you can do with it right now.

Kind of like comparing [Card]Darksteel Collosus[/Card] to [Card]Arcbound Ravager[/Card] in M:TG. Both good, one more obviously

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I think the warlock's fighting abilities look great and the fluff lends itself to a lot of different stories-some very dark. I'm hoping if any of my players chooses one, they role-play the snot out of it.
Well, the ideas of getting power from Demons, Fey, Cuthulu, Mr. Rogers, Achoo-thulu, Devils, Mr. Hankey, and Amon are inspiring and fascinating to people.

Which pisses me off. WotC added the warlock to appease the anti-hero / emo brats that want to be dark and dangerous. Instead of keeping the core classes from 3e like they should have.
Which pisses me off. WotC added the warlock to appease the anti-hero / emo brats that want to be dark and dangerous. Instead of keeping the core classes from 3e like they should have.

Hey! Not all warlocks are anti-hero/emo brats that want to be dark and dangerous. They wanted to appease the people who want to bind their souls to demons, devils, fey, and stars. Is it so wrong to like stars? Last time I checked, stars aren't emo. Well, most stars don't have wrists to cut.
Ah, don't mind Aria, wells. Just one of those people who pretty much hates everything and isn't afraid to go out there and ruin everyone else's fun. That kind of dedication takes work! *hats off*

Oh, and Stray Man? I mostly have been gunning after a chance to play a Fey Warlock because I miss the Bard, and Feylocks get to do all that mischivious misdirection stuff, which should tide me over till my Bard gets republished.
Which pisses me off. WotC added the warlock to appease the anti-hero / emo brats that want to be dark and dangerous. Instead of keeping the core classes from 3e like they should have.

Yeah... people were just clamoring to play bards and barbarians and monks and sorcerers.

Thank the dice they took out the druid for the first showing.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Druids were fun and interesting to play. Even without being a dumbass and abusing what RAW allows them to do. WotC should have kept the core 3e classes in the core 4e books. None of this everything is core bullshit. Players and DM's alike have defined CORE as the PHB, DMG, and MM since the beginning of 3e. Attempting to change it out of greed is ridiculous. Just like holding back classes for that reason.

Ah, don't mind Aria, wells. Just one of those people who pretty much hates everything and isn't afraid to go out there and ruin everyone else's fun. That kind of dedication takes work! *hats off*

I don't hate everything. I hate stupid things, which unfortunately means there's a lot of things to hate.
Meh, fair enough. Just hope you're watching your blood pressure. All that anger is NOT healthy. I've seen what it can do to people. Not pretty.
Which pisses me off. WotC added the warlock to appease the anti-hero / emo brats that want to be dark and dangerous. Instead of keeping the core classes from 3e like they should have.

Did you just refer to Mr. Rogers and Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poop as dark and emo? :D
"If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you." and "Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
And 4e isn't 3e and isn't beholden to 3e tropes.

4e is it's own system.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

4e is D&D in name only. The least they could have done was keep the same classes from the core books.
4e is D&D in name only. The least they could have done was keep the same classes from the core books.

You mean Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric, and Thief? Well, Cleric is still here, but I haven't seen the other three around in a couple decades.

This is now and always has been a weak argument. It relies entirely on 3e's class lineup being acceptably superior to the additions and subtractions of classes prior to it. Simply put no full-edition of D&D has the exact same class lineup of any other edition, so what makes 3e's lineup the ultimate benchmark?

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

There are exactly 7 things that cannot be removed from standard DnD, they are:

Clerics, Rogues, Fighters, Wizards, Dungeons, Dragons, and Beholders.

Otherwise, it's a now holds bared cage match for the best and/or most popular concepts to compete for the first three books.

4e is D&D in name only. The least they could have done was keep the same classes from the core books.

6/8 classes are repeats, if you want all of them to be repeats for no good reason then you might as well write "Bush" on the ballot when election day rolls around. :D

------

In any case, I think it's because how popular Binders and Warlocks were back in 3.5e
You mean Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric, and Thief? Well, Cleric is still here, but I haven't seen the other three around in a couple decades.

Defender, Controller, Leader, Striker.

This is now and always has been a weak argument. It relies entirely on 3e's class lineup being acceptably superior to the additions and subtractions of classes prior to it. Simply put no full-edition of D&D has the exact same class lineup of any other edition, so what makes 3e's lineup the ultimate benchmark?

It was superior.
I hear some people still like 3e. Maybe some people could go make friends?

Seriously, the fact that so many people are excited about the warlock validates the decision to include the class.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Oh, for pity's sake...

If the designers had decided to keep exactly the same core classes, they'd catch crap for being unoriginal, and why bother buying the new edition if it's just the old stuff chewed over and vomited back into a new edition.

If they change the core classes, the crap is because they dared to tamper with the purity of the "original."

Call me revolutionary, but I'm in no mood to go back to the first edition of D&D I played. (Back then, "elf" was a character class.) Still looking forward to the new edition, and I'm planning to convert to 4e ASAP.

Ever notice, the ones who gripe the loudest about the changes are the ones complaining that their overpowered classes got nerfed? Not one of 'em has said "I hate how fighters at high levels are actually balanced with the high level mages," it's "my high level mage might actually get his butt kicked by an equal-leveled fighter."

It's a new edition, folks. If you like it, play it. If you don't, feel free to keep your 3.5e, 3.0e 2nd edition, or whichever edition floated your boat.
Time to dial back the hostility folks. It's also time to stop all personal attacks.
Ever notice, the ones who gripe the loudest about the changes are the ones complaining that their overpowered classes got nerfed? Not one of 'em has said "I hate how fighters at high levels are actually balanced with the high level mages," it's "my high level mage might actually get his butt kicked by an equal-leveled fighter."






I actually preferred the PHB2 shifter variant of the druid. I never played my druids as overpowered munchkin wildshapers using dire elephants and legendary apes or whatever else they did with MoMF.

As for being balanced now... hahahaa! Guess what... everyone's in the same "boring boat" that 3e fighters were. Once you run out of dailies and encounters, you're pretty much screwed, using the same ability over and over and over and over and over. So much for the vaunted "options" that every dumb power gamer whined for. 4e at-wills are no different than using the full attack action in 3e.
I've never noticed any 3rd edition full attack options that burn enemies to a crisp, knock them back a few squares, slow them etc. I guess i just must have been reading the books incorrectly. Oh, and
Full attack = damage.

At-will powers buff, give temp hp, push enemies, mark enemies, slow enemies, make you invisible, and so on in addition to damage. Or you can choose a power that does more damage but has no special effects. This is a meaningful variety of actions.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Yeah... people were just clamoring to play bards and barbarians and monks and sorcerers.

I want to play a 4E bard.

I didn't think any of the classes you mentioned were unpopular--or at least, I've seen no proof of such. I think it's more likely that WotC just hasn't worked the "bugs" out of those classes yet.
I want to play a 4E bard.

I didn't think any of the classes you mentioned were unpopular--or at least, I've seen no proof of such. I think it's more likely that WotC just hasn't worked the "bugs" out of those classes yet.

I am too, lest anyone think I'm entirely indifferent to the classes that didn't make the cut, but I think what they were weighing was support for releases between now and PHB2 and a desire to get some newer content into the first books. The Warlord, more or less, fleshes out the Martial portfolio right out of the PHB, where Arcane would, either way, have to wait until after the FR campaign setting (Swordmage) else bench either Fighter or Paladin as well. Fighter and you're taking out one of the inarguably root classes, Paladin and you've basically removed Divine from the book. Maybe could have cut Ranger for Bard, but then you're in a position where none of the Power Sources have what you'd like in order to support an early X Power splat book.

At present I'm curious to see whether the Swordmage will be alone in the FRCS or if they'll include another base class. I would be very pleased if they rounded out Arcane with Swordmage and Bard in FRCS in time for Arcane Power to come out in early '09. Basically I want Bards to be supported in Arcane Power.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

Why did a thread investigating the popularity of warlock characters (of any edition) suddenly turn into a 3.x vs 4e shouting match?

Really. I'd have thought that people as creative as us would be more mature. Get off your soapboxes about the Edition Wars, please.
56816218 wrote:
What I find most frustrating about 4E is that I can see it includes the D&D game I've always wanted to play, but the game is so lathered in tatical combat rules that I have thus far been unable to coax the game I want out.
When the Cat's a Stray, the Mice will Pray
Why did a thread investigating the popularity of warlock characters (of any edition) suddenly turn into a 3.x vs 4e shouting match?

Really. I'd have thought that people as creative as us would be more mature. Get off your soapboxes about the Edition Wars, please.

This thinly veiled off topic comment is why.
Show
Which pisses me off. WotC added the warlock to appease the anti-hero / emo brats that want to be dark and dangerous. Instead of keeping the core classes from 3e like they should have.

This thinly veiled off topic comment is why.

Anthro, that's really uncalled for. This is Stray's thread in the first place, and he was just trying to nudge people back towards his original subject matter.
Anyway, I've said what I had to say on the matter: My desire to play a Fey-pact warlock derives from them being the closest thing to my style of bard in the new edition. Is it any wonder that my other two top choices are inspiring warlord and trickster rogue?
Anthro, that's really uncalled for. This is Stray's thread in the first place, and he was just trying to nudge people back towards his original subject matter.
Anyway, I've said what I had to say on the matter: My desire to play a Fey-pact warlock derives from them being the closest thing to my style of bard in the new edition. Is it any wonder that my other two top choices are inspiring warlord and trickster rogue?

Off-topic response
How was that unnecessary? I answered a question is all.


------------------

In any case, I like the concept of an Infernal Warlock the least. Though I don't dislike it, my favorite one is the Star Warlock, mainly because Dire Radiance always makes me think of Hammer of Dawn.
My apologies, Anthro. When I posted that, I hadn't noticed your sblock, so I assumed you were accusing Stray's line that you put inside the quote block of being a thinly veiled off topic comment. Just got a little mixed up
There are exactly 7 things that cannot be removed from standard DnD, they are:

Clerics, Rogues, Fighters, Wizards, Dungeons, Dragons, and Beholders.

We definitely can't afford to lose beholders. They are high priority. These are definitely the seven things we need to keep. Although the names can change, as long as the ideas stay intact, except for when it comes to the beholder. "Eye of the Flame"
4e is D&D in name only. The least they could have done was keep the same classes from the core books.

You repeatedly refer to 3e as if it IS D&D. Its not. Its 3e. Half orcs, barbarians, monks, sorcerers, these things did not exist in 2nd edition D&D, at least as core. Barbarians got added with a splatbook, but that splatbook was as core as the ninja splatbook. Sorcerers were not a feature of 2nd edition at all, until Baladurs Gate came out right before 3e, and then it got added as a kit so that the game would transition with 3e mechanics more easily. So long as you define D&D as 3e, your argument is illogical and worthless. With every edition of D&D a few classes disappear, and a few new classes get added. 4e is no different. It looks as much like D&D, in comparison with previous editions, as 3e did (in regards to the exact same comparison). And here is the real kicker, 4e is a better game then 3e. Its mechanics are far better balanced, easier to use, create more engaging encounters (that involve more than just standing still and taking full round actions of everlasting dice rolling), and its new classes are creating far more "buzz" and "excitement" (as evident by the existence of this thread) than anything they took away. So, maybe its time you either get with the program, or, if you REALLY like 3e that much, go join the piazo boards where a few fellow like minded naysayers won't get offended that you continuously make illogical statements that put down a version of the game that they much prefer...
I only wish they kept Vestige Pact like they said they would before.
I'd rather 4 pacts no three. Plus, this cuts Warlock a Prc (everyone else has 4; he has three).
"If you can't believe in yourself, believe in me who believes in you." and "Go beyond the impossible, and kick reason to the curb" Kamina, from Gurren Lagann
I like the Warlock. I wanted to play a Tiefling Warlock with a fiendish pact, trying to be good. You know the guy who sold his soul for unimaginable arcane power, put really wants to use that power for good. He' s a tiefling and he sold his soul, so his friends and allies really dont' trust him, even though he does good, or tries. Well, maybe? It's new exciting and sounds like oh so much fun.

Please a moment of prayer,,.

Oh dark lords of Amazon.com, please hurry the delivery of my 4e books. I'm willing to enter any pact you may require.;)
I love the idea of a warlock who serves Asmodeus. I thought up a character who does just that, but I would only use her as a villain (I prefer to play good characters).
double post
No offense Aria, but you wouldn't know what D&D is if it jumped up and bit you in the behind. You repeatedly refer to 3e as if it IS D&D. Its not. Its 3e. Half orcs, barbarians, monks, sorcerers, these things did not exist in 2nd edition D&D, at least as core.

I agree with your main point (a lot of the "core" stuff in 3E is fairly new in the overall scheme of things), but I would like to mention that the monk did exist in 1E.

if you REALLY like 3e that much, go join the piazo boards where a few fellow like minded naysayers won't get offended that you continuously make illogical statements that put down a version of the game that they much prefer...

Is it really necessary to diss a whole community like that?
Edit:
Just on the original topic -- I think the warlock is interesting because it's got awesome flavor. Not that I demand "emo" in my game; I don't. I just think the idea of purchasing power is interesting and the class is well-made to reflect that concept in a mechanical way.

It has strong flavor and strong mechanics -- what's not to like?


I think what they were weighing was support for releases between now and PHB2 and a desire to get some newer content into the first books.

Got it in one.

Notice what you see in the PHB: The four base classes that are emblematic of their roles (fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard) and rewrites of the two 3e classes that didn't need much work (the ranger and paladin). What's left? First, a rewrite of the most popular non-core class in all of 3rd edition (the warlock) that keeps most of its flavor text and assigns new mechanics that emphasize that flavor (that is, the Pact mechanics that make your oath actually affect how your character plays). Second, the Warlord, which provides a totally non-magical and non-clericky way to get healing into the group -- something we haven't had up to this point, but many people have wanted --- and plays off of the several failed "leadership" based classes in 3rd, such as the Marshal.


Of the classes they cut, two were too much duplicates of the existing classes -- barbarian and sorcerer are not much different from fighters and wizards -- and two that needed some major work in both flavor and mechanics before they'd be worth printing. (Druids have to be cut in half to form two distinct classes, or else seriously nerfed, with appropriate flavor changes either way; while bards need some reconcepting and a complete mechanical overhaul.)

The main selling points of the barbarian is rage, which looks an awful lot like an encounter power from the 4e perspective; and when you strip that Rage off of him, there's really nothing left. He's a lightly armored big tough fast guy. He's going to need some major rewriting to come up with 30 levels of powers for him that don't stomp all over the Fighter's territory (which he had already invaded in 3e, by being a more interesting fighter than the Fighter while still doing the same "I full attack again" schtick.) I hope I don't have to point out why the Sorcerer doesn't work in 4e -- the concept of a natural talent that verges on wild-magery is kind of interesting, but he's going to get a ground-up rewrite too. It sounds like they're really going for the "not quite in control" feel on the sorc, which is fine by me... sounds like fun!