|
10 months ago ::
Sep 09, 2012 - 10:47PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2010
|
Hm... Second Question: community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/... I got sold a little bit on this post for having the pacts the way that they have been shown, with a specific character in the Lore. However, I do think that generic might be the way to go, but maybe make mention of one of the most prominent pact dealers in the description just so players get the idea.
Ant Farm
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 10, 2012 - 4:39PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
Ok, here's the obvious solution:
Give generic titled pacts like, I don't know, "Dark Temptor Pact," "Autumn Whispers Pact," "Balefire Pact," etc., that are tied to what the pacts actually grant you, rather than who they're with.
Give a broad category of trades for power instead of specifics. Instead of automatically giving a wart, gold eyes, and scars, simply say that the pact causes cosmetic changes. Suggest those three things, but also include stuff like streaks of white in your hair, super pale or otherwise discolored skin, odd colored eyes, differently patterned scars, hairlessness, or whatever else you like.
Then, at the end of each entry, list specific entities that grant the pact, with the specific trades they demand. So, the charm/disadvantage to attackers/teleport pact would have Verenestra listed at the end with the specific wart/gold eyes/scars mentioned. But nothing would stop you from taking a charm/disadvantage to attackers/teleport pact and trading something else instead.
This is very good.
I'd actually take it a step further. Mention that each power should be accompanied by minor changes, then present a bullet list of examples, e.g.:
- Cosmetic deformities: A wart, scars, unusual hair loss, discolored skin patches, albinism, a white lock of hair
- Otherworldly cosmetic changes: Impossible eye, hair, or skin color (in whole or in patches/streaks); subtle clouds of smoke, shadow, sparkles, or light; vestigial horns, fangs, wings, or claws
- Vocal changes: Unusually deep or high-pitched, echoing or reverse-echoing, accompanied by a subtle sound effect
- Gradual changes in height, slowly gaining or losing about 2 feet of height (assuming initial human size, less for shorter races) over the course of the character level
Etcetera. Then at the end of the sidebar, list some example entities, powers they are likely to grant, and changes they are likely to inflict.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 10, 2012 - 8:10PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2004
|
Having an explicit name hurts the concept, I believe. Doesn't an explicit name feel more like a binder thing, and the physical manifestations of binding are being cheaply shoehorned into the warlock? Mechanically and powerwise it is a decent class but it really misses the mark.
Shouldn't somebody who pledges to evil Deviltry value intellect in contractual negotiation, somebody who pledges to Feydom would value Charisma because the abilities are in line with charisma, influence, physical ability and the core casting stat, class abilities and suggested backgrounds work off Charisma.
Edit: That is one thing I did enjoy about Dungeons and Dragons 4E. Even if one path were stronger, say Intellect over Charisma, if you didn't want to play a genius Warlock but rather a demagogue charismatic Warlock, you could. Same with the Warlord.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 2:44PM
#24
|
|
|
As I am a big of lore in general, at first I supported having the specific names in the pacts. But I've been quietly developing a little campaign setting for 5e and this is when I finally decided to switch sides. When creating custom material it might get a little annoying trying to work in all these predefined NPCs, to me at least.
My two copper.
|
|
|
