Warlock as a base class huh?

49 posts / 0 new
Last post
i like it. i like the idea that there is an "evil" class to counter balance paladins. dont get me wrong i like paladins but they were a little too zealous in 3.5 ed. the whole can't knowingly associate with evil characters thing really irked me. hopefully with the intro of warlocks that has been relaxed a little.
4th Edition Paladins won't have alignment restrictions.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Warlocks are not gonna be all Grim and Vile, and Paladins are not gonna all be Lawful Stupid.

4th Edition Paladins won't have alignment restrictions.

That is not a given. All we know for sure as they will not be limited to Lawful Good only.
That is not a given. All we know for sure as they will not be limited to Lawful Good only.

This is true.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Warlocks were always a base class. ITYM "core" class.
thats what i meant
nothing bad about adding the warlock to the base classes. i personally always thought that the warlock was a better match to the name sorcerer than the sorcerer itself... and since theres no sign of the sorcerer i believe he probably will be pretty close to it("confessions of a part-time sorceress" turning into "confessions of a full-time wizard" is a sign in my opinion).

warlocks arent necessarily evil, it depends on the players choices. i like the thought that you can have a evil paladin that follows some dark gods(if alignment restrictions are gone that is).
It doesn't sound at all like Warlocks will be 'evil'. They can choose from three power sources: Feral (Feywild), Shadowy (The Shadowfell), and Infernal (Astral Sea, Devils). Personally I think this is a great way to go and removes the 'stigma' as warlocks being evil.

Harliquinn
nothing bad about adding the warlock to the base classes. i personally always thought that the warlock was a better match to the name sorcerer than the sorcerer itself... and since theres no sign of the sorcerer i believe he probably will be pretty close to it("confessions of a part-time sorceress" turning into "confessions of a full-time wizard" is a sign in my opinion).

Didn't they already confirm that sorcerers will be part of 4E from the start?
From the time I first saw the Warlock my thought was "This is what the sorcerer SHOULD have been". The difference between the sorcerer and the wizard was such a fine one, IMO, that I didn't think it really merited its own class (the poor sorceror doesn't even get his own spell list). So if they said adios to the sorcerer and put the warlock in his place, that's fine with me.

The alignment thing doesn't bother me, I have always glossed over alignment anyway in my campaigns (considering it more descriptive than proscriptive. That is to say what you do determines your alignment more than your alignment limiting what you do) and its nice to have a "dark hero" type to balance out the happy shiny paladins.

My biggest concern is that with the wizard being changed so much, that the difference between wizard and warlock will be as fine as the difference between wizard and sorceror is now. Though if they have a very different set of powers, that will be a good step.
Didn't they already confirm that sorcerers will be part of 4E from the start?

No, they said that every 3e PHB class will be a 4e class. They didn't say when.

Jay
No, they said that every 3e PHB class will be a 4e class. They didn't say when.

Jay

I'd also point out that they've talked a lot about certain classes beating up other classes and stealing their stuff, so I doubt we'll see all of the 3ed base classes and prestige classes in 4ed, but we'll eventually have the ability to build all of those various classes through class options and/or multiclassing (using the promised workable multiclassing).
It doesn't sound at all like Warlocks will be 'evil'. They can choose from three power sources: Feral (Feywild), Shadowy (The Shadowfell), and Infernal (Astral Sea, Devils). Personally I think this is a great way to go and removes the 'stigma' as warlocks being evil.

Harliquinn

Do you suppose the Druid has been replaced by the Feral (Feywild) Warlock?
No the Feral Warlock has not replaced the Druid, mainly because as stated the Druid will eventually show up as it's own class. As for Sorcerer I completely disagree with the commentary on them that I have read. They are nothing like a Warlock. A warlock gains his powers form pacts and from outside sources. A sorcerer gains his powers form within, from his own innate magical power. They didn't have their own spell list because they cast the same arcane powers as wizard they just brought forth the magic from within. Their still needs to be a Sorcerer an alignment free, outside restriction free arcanist who casts based of innate magical ability. Now that being said I still think the Sorcerer will be in the first PHB for the reason that they have mentioned making the Wizard and Warlock more distinct. If not I will be very sad but oh well. I see the wizard having at will powers maybe a compromise but still I liked the dragon blooded magical power a lot.
Now that being said I still think the Sorcerer will be in the first PHB for the reason that they have mentioned making the Wizard and Warlock more distinct.

Only if they are trying to fool us. They've said the PHB will have 8 classes. We've confirmed fighter, wizards, warlock, rogue, cleric, paladin, ranger, and warlord. All of these (I think) appeared in playtest reports, while the sorceror hasn't appeared in any of them.
The alignment thing doesn't bother me, I have always glossed over alignment anyway in my campaigns (considering it more descriptive than proscriptive. That is to say what you do determines your alignment more than your alignment limiting what you do)

That's precisely how it's supposed to work.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
That's precisely how it's supposed to work.

But alignment doesn't work like that in practice.
But alignment doesn't work like that in practice.

Agreed, but that's because players don't understand it.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Agreed, but that's because players don't understand it.

I think a lot of that is because the rules present it as something absolute in a lot of cases, yet in reality it really should be something more mutable.
With no alignment restrictions or at least alignment not being used as a limiting factor to players. I think the Warlock class needs not be evil. In fact after reading the class design article I think they are more scary then evil or good. The power to send the souls of their foes to a specific afterlife is interesting as the first thing you think is "oh the warlock collects souls for his evil patron, wow warlock is an evil class" but what if he served a good aligned patron, then he would be sending foul beings and evil souls to their just punishments. Still brutal and scary but not an evil character by default. So I think that whilst the warlock still has the scary theme they are no longer restricted to the evil theme.
With no alignment restrictions or at least alignment not being used as a limiting factor to players. I think the Warlock class needs not be evil. In fact after reading the class design article I think they are more scary then evil or good. The power to send the souls of their foes to a specific afterlife is interesting as the first thing you think is "oh the warlock collects souls for his evil patron, wow warlock is an evil class" but what if he served a good aligned patron, then he would be sending foul beings and evil souls to their just punishments. Still brutal and scary but not an evil character by default. So I think that whilst the warlock still has the scary theme they are no longer restricted to the evil theme.

My problem isn't so much the alignment side of things, I know they plan to remove alignment restrictions. My concern is that this is incredibly specific flavour and it sounds like that flavour is explicitly reflected in the mechanics of the class. I don't have a problem with having these things as options I have a problem with it appearing to be the only way you can play that class. It's not quite as bad as the Paladin's code in 3ed pretty much telling you how you had to play that class but it's close (at least from the impression I got, I hope I'm wrong).
i don't think we will see alot of restrictions on what a warlock is allowed to do before his powers are revoked. when i am thinking pacts and the likes i sort of think that they are powers that can't be taken back without ripping it out along with their innards.

sure, a warlock might do something that the owner of his powersource dissagrees on, but the DM won't/shouldn't just go "oh and you just lost your warlock powers". he should go "oh and a daemon is sent by your patron to retrieve the powers that he apparently thinks he has wasted on you"

perhaps it can be described in the way that a pact is something that doesnt come up to review way too often because non-good creatures likes to know that they can't be stabbed in the back at inopportune moments. paladins and clerics rent their powers, warlocks and other scary classes grabs whats up for offer and hide it away from its former masters.
sure, a warlock might do something that the owner of his powersource dissagrees on, but the DM won't/shouldn't just go "oh and you just lost your warlock powers". he should go "oh and a daemon is sent by your patron to retrieve the powers that he apparently thinks he has wasted on you"

In fact, if it is a formal pact, then the creature you made the pact with may not even care. As long as you don't try and turn the power against them, nothing you can do on the mortal plane is liable to matter to them. Why should they care what you do with the power, since no matter what they get your soul when you die?

Jay
I hope they stick with the orignal basis of the warlock class where the pact may not have been made by the person but from someone in their bloodline in the past. Then you can have a LG warlock if you want to and like the effects of spells the looks of a power are very easy to change. I for one am very happy that they are adding them as I loved the orginal 3.5 version and my only gripe was so little new ever came out for them.
Hargert: a good example there might be the darkness. ancient evil power going from father to son.

JayM: yeah, as long as the pact allows you to increase in power once you got the basics in you, i don't see any reason why the entities should really care much. naturally if the DM wants to use it as a hook theres plenty of possibilities for that.
There could be a few sentences from the pact that the character must face now and then, or perhaps something had to be done before the pact was given to them in the first place. would fit together with the father to son kinda thing- if people knew that you were the descendant of some BBEG things could turn interesting :D
I also like the idea of the pact or power being infused in an ancestor or in some other manner against your will. If they do drop Sorcerer then this may be the 'Bloodline' class and they may institute new bloodline talent trees later on, Draconic, Celestial that sort of thing. It makes for a good way to expand upon a class without losing it's flavor or changing its mechanic, they could just release new Warlock powerlines with every new book.
Agreed, but that's because players don't understand it.

If you "use" alignment that way it's the same as not using it at all. That's why it's not a good rule.
If you "use" alignment that way it's the same as not using it at all. That's why it's not a good rule.

Alignment is, and always has been, supposed to describe your character's attitude, not dictate them. People just tend to interpret it in the wrong way.

And what's the difference with it not being there? The way spells and abilities affect you.;)
If it only describes your attitude, then why are there dozens of spells that make it a straitjacket?
If it only describes your attitude, then why are there dozens of spells that make it a straitjacket?

Exactly, we're torn between alignment working better as being a general description of your attitude and working better that way (especially with regards to the idea of your alignment not being set in stone) but then the idea that it's absolute (spells that treat it that way, strict alignment restrictions, or issues with losing class features due changing it).
If it only describes your attitude, then why are there dozens of spells that make it a straitjacket?

In what way do they make it a straitjacket?

Jay
From the time I first saw the Warlock my thought was "This is what the sorcerer SHOULD have been". The difference between the sorcerer and the wizard was such a fine one, IMO, that I didn't think it really merited its own class (the poor sorceror doesn't even get his own spell list). So if they said adios to the sorcerer and put the warlock in his place, that's fine with me.

If that had ben the case I wouldn't have bought 3.0 and you wouldn't be reading this message.

The alignment thing doesn't bother me, I have always glossed over alignment anyway in my campaigns (considering it more descriptive than proscriptive. That is to say what you do determines your alignment more than your alignment limiting what you do) and its nice to have a "dark hero" type to balance out the happy shiny paladins.

What you mean is not having everyone on your case since your character isn't a team player but is rather depndent on killing things for its powers which might be troublesome if your dm runs a game where there isn't anything to kill... unless you're evil though...

My biggest concern is that with the wizard being changed so much, that the difference between wizard and warlock will be as fine as the difference between wizard and sorceror is now. Though if they have a very different set of powers, that will be a good step.

The warlock and the term evil are linked, yes you could play someone who seeks redemption because of their pact with evil but that would also require them NOT to continue as a warlock to ctually mean anything.
As it stands this looks like and evil only class and those alignments are being cast out because it would be royally stuffed otherwise.

We will all have to wait until they correct their earlier statements before you and others can go around saying otherwise ok?
What you mean is not having everyone on your case since your character isn't a team player but is rather depndent on killing things for its powers which might be troublesome if your dm runs a game where there isn't anything to kill... unless you're evil though...

What I meant is exactly what I said, no more, no less. It's not nice to put words in other people's mouths. Further, you seem to be under the misapprehension that "Dark Hero" = "Mass Murderer". Maybe my Complete Arcane is missing some pages, but I see no where in the class description him being dependant on killing anything for his power. Nor do I recall any statements to the effect about the 4e Warlock.

As for his effectiveness outside of combat, i.e. in " a game where there isn't anything to kill" the 3.5 warlock has abilties and skills that make him quite good as a "face man" for the group. ANd he certainly has a lot more to do outside of combat than oh, say, the fighter, which is a class I presume you don't object to.


The warlock and the term evil are linked, yes you could play someone who seeks redemption because of their pact with evil but that would also require them NOT to continue as a warlock to ctually mean anything.
As it stands this looks like and evil only class and those alignments are being cast out because it would be royally stuffed otherwise.

That's ONE version of fluff you could pin on the warlock, yes. But not the only one. The 3.5 Warlock plays just fine without being confined to evil only, and from the article on warlocks they put up last week, it sounds like the 4e warlock will be just as playable too.


We will all have to wait until they correct their earlier statements before you and others can go around saying otherwise ok?

Likewise they will have to specifically say that warlocks are evil only before you can go around saying that, too. On the other hand the article they put up on them implies that their powers come from a variety of sources, including the fey, which in turn would indicate that they are NOT going to be evil only in 4e anymore than they were in 3.5.
Not liking the addition of Warlock as Base. That is just me though.
Not liking the addition of Warlock as Base.

That's how I felt about the Barbarian in 3rd edition, as barbarian is a subjective cultural term or what have you.
If it only describes your attitude, then why are there dozens of spells that make it a straitjacket?

Alignment is descriptive unless you are certain classes, then it can be a straight-jacket - after all why would the God of peace grant spells to people who act in a CE fashion.

One of my pcs inherited a CG cleric of Olidammara (CN). He has sussed that he can be CE without losing his abilities, which makes me and all the other players nervous. Technically he can just start playing evil and become evil with no need to explain why in role playing terms. I hope he can resist the urge though - the other players have made it clear that evil will not be tolerated in the group and it will really upset the apple cart and leave bad feelings if they have to take him down.
Not liking the addition of Warlock as Base. That is just me though.

Care to elaborate on that? I'm not challenging you I'd just like to hear more about what bothers you about it.

Personally, my main concern is the heavy flavour that appears to be explicitly written into this class, which I don't think is appropriate for a core class, a campaign setting class? Sure. A prestige class? Sure. But the core classes should be pretty "flavour neutral" or have that flavour come from the options you select.

Personally, it doesn't bother me too much in terms of the "taking up someone else's slot" argument as I see it as replacing the sorcerer, and the sorcerer really only existed in 3ed to provide a non-vancian option (and was pretty poorly implemented at that). Fun to play? Sure, but just not differentiated all that well and with vancian casting almost completely gone in 4ed I don't see that niche as needed and suspect that either the wizard is completely gone or will come back in a form that really does differentiate it.

Looking at the 11 3.5 classes we have:

  • Barbarian - not really differentiated from the fighter, easily rolled into the fighter, or needs to come back more differentiated from the 2 classes.
  • Bard - replaced by the Warlord
  • Cleric - in 4ed.
  • Druid - out (for now?), possibly covered by the cleric and/or other classes.
  • Fighter - in 4ed.
  • Monk - out (for now?), the fighter could potentially cover the unarmed fighter concept though.
  • Paladin - in 4ed.
  • Ranger - in 4ed.
  • Rogue - in 4ed.
  • Sorcerer - Warlock takes his spot, potentially completely replacing the class.
  • Wizard - in 4ed.


So really we have just about all the 11 classes covered. Yes, some will miss some of the Bard's flavour but it sounds like the Warlord has the role covered in a much more interesting/sensible way in terms of for combat. The barbarian seems to easily be rolled into the fighter. The sorcerer I've already discussed. So all we're missing are the Druid and the Monk and I already mentioned that the fighter might cover the unarmed fighting/martial artist aspect, just not as much of the mystical side. So it sounds like the 1st PHB is doing a good job of covering what was in the 3.5 PHB but with fewer classes, hopefully this means they'll take the extra space to present more options for customising those classes.
[*]Sorcerer - Warlock takes his spot, potentially completely replacing the class.

We've been told the Sorcerer will be back, and when it does, it will be substantially different than the Wizard.
We've been told the Sorcerer will be back, and when it does, it will be substantially different than the Wizard.

As wild speculation, the sorcerer might come back with a strong nature theme. Since the barbarian and druid are also in the cooler, it would make sense to bring them back together in a nature-oriented PHB. Also, sorcerers have been described in 3.5 as getting along well with barbarians, so it'd be a nice idea to elaborate on that.
We've been told the Sorcerer will be back, and when it does, it will be substantially different than the Wizard.

Cool, I hadn't seen that, do you have a link? It'll be interesting to see where they take the class then. If they play up the flavour from 3ed then I'm thinking we'll see some more options to play up various heritages, but how that will work without stepping on the toes of the new Warlock is a good question. I'm guessing that if nothing else we'll see them in a different role (arcane striker?) to help with the differentiation.
Cool, I hadn't seen that, do you have a link? It'll be interesting to see where they take the class then. If they play up the flavour from 3ed then I'm thinking we'll see some more options to play up various heritages, but how that will work without stepping on the toes of the new Warlock is a good question. I'm guessing that if nothing else we'll see them in a different role (arcane striker?) to help with the differentiation.

Q. Will the Wizard and Sorcerer merge?
A. No. Sorcerer will be different from wizards in more ways than just resource management.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204434