Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Teh warlock is teh suxx!

When the warlock first appeared as a class I barely noticed. As a dedicated player of spellcasters it caught my eye but only as a novel new twist. I didn't even give it much of a read as I was much more interested in Pact Magic and Dragon Magic which Crwth had also added to the library around that time.

So for a long time the Warlock simply flew below my radar.

Recently however, I returned to gaming at the play-by-post boards over at WotC (Real_Adventures if you're curious). As such I'm seeing a lot of warlocks being put forth as player characters. That and the fact that every playtest party seems to have at least one warlock (usually a tielfing I might add). So, okay, the class has my grudging attention now.

If for not other reason than the possibility that the warlock is as preview of the magic system we might see in 4e. The invocations thing, the uses per day thing, the whole 90 degree departure from the spellcasting system used for sorcerors and wizards.

All in all, I think that the warlock is a viable and interesting class, for 3.5 edition.

I say again... for 3.5.

What I don't see is how it'll fit in 4th edition. If the 4e magic system is more or less like the current warlock, then the one thing that seperates it from the sorcerer is suddenly gone. The warlock becomes a sorcerer with a darker background. A Goth version and nothing more.

It seems to me that the warlock could be better used if rolled into the sorcerer. Give sorcerers the option of the traditional draconic heritage, or a warlocky devilish background.

Better yet, make it a middle ground between the sorcerer and druid. The DMG has the witch (aka warlock) as an example of how to make your own prestige class (can't recall the page but it's at the start of the PrC chapter). That's the warlock I think of. That's the kind of class I can picture in 4e. Save the heavy eyeliner, black lipstick, and white face paint for some other game.


Anonymous said...

In some of the material out about the warlock they mention that you have to make a particular pact with either demons, devils, fey, or vestiges. I think what we'll be seeing is a combo of the warlock and binder. Both were charisma based classes before and have similar gross stats in terms of saves and BAB. Personally, I'm very excited about the new warlock, I always wanted to use both of those classes as a PC but I feel constrained by the limited feat selections.

Anonymous said...

Hey I just read a article on 4th edtion warlocks.

king of explains them. I've been playing warlocks for a while now in 3.5, Most people think they are weak, but I got a couple GM's annoyed with me, when my character is like I blast you, I detect magic, then I keep blasting you for the next hour, and guess when I'm still 20 feet out of your reach so you cant hurt me.

Warlocks are the rouge with magic. Well the conman rouges, when at first level with a 18 charsima you have 14 in your bluff diploamcy, and intimadate. before you roll, You are pretty good.

To expand when ever I did gestalt Characters It is always, warlock and Rogue, because that is realsitic when I do sneak attacks with the elderitch blast your doing 10d damage plus if your hitting with a dagger a extra d4 for fun.

Warlocks are for those who want to do magic, but hate those limits. I want a magic user who dosen't have to prepare his spells every day or can only do five of them.

The limited number of ones I can do is much eaiser, because I just have to be creative with what I do have.

Plus whenever I gain a new one I can change around my old ones so if orgianlly I had spider climb, but then I could fly, what is the point of having spider climb so I switch it out for shatter.