Why are Warlocks not allowed in LG? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Why are Warlocks not allowed in LG? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
echoota
02-11-07, 10:03 AM Just wondering the reasoning behind why the Warlock isn't allowed in LG? Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good Warlocks can be played, and it gives an interesting alternative to the vancian system of magic.

Are they overpowered in some manner? I've been watching some players use Warlocks outside of LG and it looks like a fun class to play and doesn't seem to be abusing anything with the system.
Vanadium
02-11-07, 10:47 AM If I recall correctly, the reason we don't have Warlocks is the same reason we don't have Psionics, Magic of the Incarnum, anything from the Tomes of Battle and Magic, and any number of other sources.

That reason is because the Warlock isn't in the classical flavor of Greyhawk. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I believe that's the reason that's been stated before.
Mortepierre
02-11-07, 12:20 PM If I recall correctly, the reason we don't have Warlocks is the same reason we don't have Psionics, Magic of the Incarnum, anything from the Tomes of Battle and Magic, and any number of other sources.

Ahem.. some stuff from ToM is already in-game due to AR from a certain CORS mod.

That said, Warlocks are badly broken. I'm thus very happy they aren't allowed.
Vanadium
02-11-07, 01:43 PM I guess I forgot about the Tome of Magic Stuff. Partially because I never played that mod.

I'm not really a proponent for getting the Warlock allowed, but they do seem pretty well-balanced. The only thing I'm remembering that might be weird in Living Greyhawk is their 12th level ability, and even that is balanced by the internal Magic Item Creation restrictions of the campaign (especially this year).

If you don't mind, what about them is overpowered?
GreatSiron
02-11-07, 04:30 PM It's because LG is mostly combat oriented, and the warlock has the ability to do ranged touch attacks as often as he wants, with the further ability to do other things as much as he wants. This means they don't run out of resources like other arcane. Spell resistance isnt a factor, as they have the vitrolic blast invocation, which makes their blast ignore SR, and they do way more damage than mundane ranged options.

Its mostly the "much as they want" part of it that probably got them banned. After all, even archers run out of arrows eventually.
Franco Un-American
02-11-07, 05:06 PM Except that most Greyhawk modules don't have more than 3-4 encounters per day. Even wizards don't usually run out of spells in that, except at the lowest levels. And warlocks are one of the best balanced classes out.
Mortepierre
02-11-07, 06:09 PM If you don't mind, what about them is overpowered?

See this thread:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788014
solbergb
02-11-07, 07:24 PM Nothing about them is overpowered in the LG setting.

Really nothing about them is overpowered in a non-LG setting either unless 13 encounter/day situations are common. Their power level is so much lower than a normal caster OR archer that the fact they can do it constantly hardly matters.

It's like a wizard using nothing but reserve feats. Not something to lose sleep over from a power level, but also not something you really want at your table most of the time.

I get the impression they're not a PC class for the same reason Black Flame Zealot isn't a PC class. While a PC could maybe qualify without being evil, they're not as a class, something you expect to be a normal adventurer. Even if the morality fit - they've got NPC-class power levels in a 3 encounter/day setting and wouldn't be invited to join the Adventurer's Standard table at the inn.
Sieylianna
02-11-07, 07:58 PM I get the impression they're not a PC class for the same reason Black Flame Zealot isn't a PC class. While a PC could maybe qualify without being evil, they're not as a class, something you expect to be a normal adventurer. Even if the morality fit - they've got NPC-class power levels in a 3 encounter/day setting and wouldn't be invited to join the Adventurer's Standard table at the inn.

Yes, PC clerics of Joramy could qualify for Black Flame Zealot, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by the LGCS.

Ed
Mithreinmaethor
02-11-07, 08:31 PM Yes, PC clerics of Joramy could qualify for Black Flame Zealot, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by the LGCS.

Ed

So I assume that they will remove the text from the Deities document that shows that they were a choice ?
boolean
02-12-07, 12:16 AM So I assume that they will remove the text from the Deities document that shows that they were a choice ?

Probably not. The text in the deities document allows NPC worshippers of Joramy to become Black Flame Zealots. The LGCS closes the class to PCs, but authors are still allowed to use it.
echoota
02-12-07, 12:59 AM See this thread:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788014

Thank you for pointing out that thread, that is helpful.

It's also dissapointing to read, to sum up:

The "evil" argument doesn't hold weight because of hexblade's precident, going to so far to be even more flexible than the hexblade and the fact that the warlock power can be derived from the fey gives an alternative to some hellish background.

The non-vancian system doesn't hold weight because of of Shadowcaster's precident in LG.

The "always on" argument doesn't hold much real weight since with LG's adventure structure any comparable spellcaster (save at very low level) won't have any problem utilizing their powers for a whole adventure.

The only argument that seems to hold some weight is that at 12th level if you are a powergamer you can figure out how to do some very technical crafting, however this crafting is mitigated by the restrictions on what one can craft in the first place.

And on top of all of that you have plenty of people saying that they are generally underpowered, especially compared to spellcasters of a similar level, that authors don't really bother to use them in adventures as is...

I don't know, but all of the above doesn't sound like much of a game breaker to me.

Is the real fuss simply that they care called a "warlock?" If they had been called an "Invoker" would it have been an issue? But because it has a name that evokes witches and evil things then it shouldn't be allowed?

All I know is that in my limited play with them I haven't seen anything broken and all they have done is add to the flavor of this being a game of a magical world. The always on ability of the warlock hasn't been overpowered in combat, my archer outperforms the eldrich blast at similar levels, but what the warlock adds is a lot of flavor with that always on ability. You can really be "magical" in a lot of ways that you wouldn't do as a sorcerer or wizard.

Ultimately, I'm dissapointed. I'd hoped that it would have been included in this year's LGCS. I'm quite happy to be underpowered if I can get a chance to play something that has always on powers that makes you feel more like the magic users you see in movies and books.
copper_wyrmling
02-12-07, 01:38 AM Probably not. The text in the deities document allows NPC worshippers of Joramy to become Black Flame Zealots. The LGCS closes the class to PCs, but authors are still allowed to use it.

Yeah. Grumble grumble ;) When the Deities' Doc first came out, I actually asked the Circle to remove Joramy as an allowable choice for Black Flame Zealot, because I was already sick of encountering NPC followers of Joramy as bad guys in modules (my main PC is a cleric of Joramy). The answer was "no". (And much to the disappointment of my friend who played a rogue follower of Joramy, they wouldn't let him be a Black Flame Zealot either ;) )
Puggle Halfwine
02-12-07, 07:15 AM ... I was already sick of encountering NPC followers of Joramy as bad guys in modules...

Maybe if you didn't blow up so many mountains* there might be more love for Joramy in LG...? ;)

*I only know of one mountain... ... so far.
Rerednaw
02-12-07, 05:05 PM Thank you for pointing out that thread, that is helpful.

It's also dissapointing to read, to sum up:
...
I also read the entire thread where every argument for restricting was refuted and proven to be in error.

So why can you add a warlock to a mod to kill the party but not play one in a mod? It's not because of alignment, power, crafting, or general broken-ness.

Sadly, the real reason is because they said so. :D

Want to play one? Don't play LG.
echoota
02-12-07, 05:53 PM Want to play one? Don't play LG.

Unfortunately that's the case. One of the reasons why my wife and I are more focusing on Xen'drik of late. She's playing a Catfolk Warlock and having a great time with it.
_metz_
02-12-07, 07:53 PM 4 words. Warlock Dagger Spell Mage.

Look at it, you will come to understand.
Arvagor
02-12-07, 08:17 PM 4 words. Warlock Dagger Spell Mage.

Look at it, you will come to understand.What's there to understand? Warlocks are ineligible for entry into daggerspell mage, as they cannot meet all of the requirements (specifically, they do not meet the "Special: Arcane caster level 5th" requirement, and it's the "arcane" part that disqualifies them for eligibility).
ragecage79
02-12-07, 09:07 PM What's there to understand? Warlocks are ineligible for entry into daggerspell mage, as they cannot meet all of the requirements (specifically, they do not meet the "Special: Arcane caster level 5th" requirement, and it's the "arcane" part that disqualifies them for eligibility).

Warlocks can qualify for arcane caster level pre-req's as they are arcane casters per their class description, just not spell level pre-reqs because they never learn spells. See CA at the bottom of page 18 for the details.
Arvagor
02-12-07, 09:34 PM Warlocks can qualify for arcane caster level pre-req's as they are arcane casters per their class description, just not spell level pre-reqs because they never learn spells. See CA at the bottom of page 18 for the details.
I've read both the class description and the pre-reqs section on page 18. Where does it specifically say that invocations are arcane, or that the class in general is to be considered an arcane caster?

Regardless, daggerspell mage is an incredibly inadequate class for taking advantage of the warlock's abilities. Many of the DSM's abilities require the PC to sacrifice a spell slot (Arcane Infusion) or to cast spells through his daggers (Daggercast, Invocation of the Knife, Double Daggercast, Arcane Throw). All of those abilities are essentially wasted -- the warlock does not have slots to give up (so Arcane Infusion is useless), nor does he cast spells (so all the other aforementioned abilities are useless).
Britt
02-12-07, 09:40 PM Just wondering the reasoning behind why the Warlock isn't allowed in LG?
Gnomes.
Vanadium
02-12-07, 09:56 PM Gnomes.

Knew it. Its always the Gnomes.
catsclaw
02-12-07, 09:57 PM I've read both the class description and the pre-reqs section on page 18. Where does it specifically say that invocations are arcane, or that the class in general is to be considered an arcane caster?Complete Arcane, p. 7: "A warlock does not prepare or cast spells as other wielders of arcane magic do."

Complete Arcane, p. 4: "A number of terms can be used to describe arcane spell-casters ... Warlock: A member of the warlock class, described in this book beginning on page 5."

And, I hesitate to point out, the title of the book itself.
Arvagor
02-12-07, 10:44 PM I'll accept your first two (even though both are outside the actual class description), but your last means that a hexblade is a fighter caster, and a spellthief is an adventurer caster ;)
LGMoses
02-13-07, 10:47 AM Gnomes.

Gnomes?

I just don't like the flavor of the warlock myself. Ofcourse, I also have one in Xen'drik Expeditions.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
echoota 02-11-07, 10:03 AM	Just wondering the reasoning behind why the Warlock isn't allowed in LG? Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good Warlocks can be played, and it gives an interesting alternative to the vancian system of magic. Are they overpowered in some manner? I've been watching some players use Warlocks outside of LG and it looks like a fun class to play and doesn't seem to be abusing anything with the system.
Vanadium 02-11-07, 10:47 AM	If I recall correctly, the reason we don't have Warlocks is the same reason we don't have Psionics, Magic of the Incarnum, anything from the Tomes of Battle and Magic, and any number of other sources. That reason is because the Warlock isn't in the classical flavor of Greyhawk. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I believe that's the reason that's been stated before.
Mortepierre 02-11-07, 12:20 PM	If I recall correctly, the reason we don't have Warlocks is the same reason we don't have Psionics, Magic of the Incarnum, anything from the Tomes of Battle and Magic, and any number of other sources. Ahem.. some stuff from ToM is already in-game due to AR from a certain CORS mod. That said, Warlocks are badly broken. I'm thus very happy they aren't allowed.
Vanadium 02-11-07, 01:43 PM	I guess I forgot about the Tome of Magic Stuff. Partially because I never played that mod. I'm not really a proponent for getting the Warlock allowed, but they do seem pretty well-balanced. The only thing I'm remembering that might be weird in Living Greyhawk is their 12th level ability, and even that is balanced by the internal Magic Item Creation restrictions of the campaign (especially this year). If you don't mind, what about them is overpowered?
GreatSiron 02-11-07, 04:30 PM	It's because LG is mostly combat oriented, and the warlock has the ability to do ranged touch attacks as often as he wants, with the further ability to do other things as much as he wants. This means they don't run out of resources like other arcane. Spell resistance isnt a factor, as they have the vitrolic blast invocation, which makes their blast ignore SR, and they do way more damage than mundane ranged options. Its mostly the "much as they want" part of it that probably got them banned. After all, even archers run out of arrows eventually.
Franco Un-American 02-11-07, 05:06 PM	Except that most Greyhawk modules don't have more than 3-4 encounters per day. Even wizards don't usually run out of spells in that, except at the lowest levels. And warlocks are one of the best balanced classes out.
Mortepierre 02-11-07, 06:09 PM	If you don't mind, what about them is overpowered? See this thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788014
solbergb 02-11-07, 07:24 PM	Nothing about them is overpowered in the LG setting. Really nothing about them is overpowered in a non-LG setting either unless 13 encounter/day situations are common. Their power level is so much lower than a normal caster OR archer that the fact they can do it constantly hardly matters. It's like a wizard using nothing but reserve feats. Not something to lose sleep over from a power level, but also not something you really want at your table most of the time. I get the impression they're not a PC class for the same reason Black Flame Zealot isn't a PC class. While a PC could maybe qualify without being evil, they're not as a class, something you expect to be a normal adventurer. Even if the morality fit - they've got NPC-class power levels in a 3 encounter/day setting and wouldn't be invited to join the Adventurer's Standard table at the inn.
Sieylianna 02-11-07, 07:58 PM	I get the impression they're not a PC class for the same reason Black Flame Zealot isn't a PC class. While a PC could maybe qualify without being evil, they're not as a class, something you expect to be a normal adventurer. Even if the morality fit - they've got NPC-class power levels in a 3 encounter/day setting and wouldn't be invited to join the Adventurer's Standard table at the inn. Yes, PC clerics of Joramy could qualify for Black Flame Zealot, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by the LGCS. Ed
Mithreinmaethor 02-11-07, 08:31 PM	Yes, PC clerics of Joramy could qualify for Black Flame Zealot, if it wasn't specifically prohibited by the LGCS. Ed So I assume that they will remove the text from the Deities document that shows that they were a choice ?
boolean 02-12-07, 12:16 AM	So I assume that they will remove the text from the Deities document that shows that they were a choice ? Probably not. The text in the deities document allows NPC worshippers of Joramy to become Black Flame Zealots. The LGCS closes the class to PCs, but authors are still allowed to use it.
echoota 02-12-07, 12:59 AM	See this thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788014 Thank you for pointing out that thread, that is helpful. It's also dissapointing to read, to sum up: The "evil" argument doesn't hold weight because of hexblade's precident, going to so far to be even more flexible than the hexblade and the fact that the warlock power can be derived from the fey gives an alternative to some hellish background. The non-vancian system doesn't hold weight because of of Shadowcaster's precident in LG. The "always on" argument doesn't hold much real weight since with LG's adventure structure any comparable spellcaster (save at very low level) won't have any problem utilizing their powers for a whole adventure. The only argument that seems to hold some weight is that at 12th level if you are a powergamer you can figure out how to do some very technical crafting, however this crafting is mitigated by the restrictions on what one can craft in the first place. And on top of all of that you have plenty of people saying that they are generally underpowered, especially compared to spellcasters of a similar level, that authors don't really bother to use them in adventures as is... I don't know, but all of the above doesn't sound like much of a game breaker to me. Is the real fuss simply that they care called a "warlock?" If they had been called an "Invoker" would it have been an issue? But because it has a name that evokes witches and evil things then it shouldn't be allowed? All I know is that in my limited play with them I haven't seen anything broken and all they have done is add to the flavor of this being a game of a magical world. The always on ability of the warlock hasn't been overpowered in combat, my archer outperforms the eldrich blast at similar levels, but what the warlock adds is a lot of flavor with that always on ability. You can really be "magical" in a lot of ways that you wouldn't do as a sorcerer or wizard. Ultimately, I'm dissapointed. I'd hoped that it would have been included in this year's LGCS. I'm quite happy to be underpowered if I can get a chance to play something that has always on powers that makes you feel more like the magic users you see in movies and books.
copper_wyrmling 02-12-07, 01:38 AM	Probably not. The text in the deities document allows NPC worshippers of Joramy to become Black Flame Zealots. The LGCS closes the class to PCs, but authors are still allowed to use it. Yeah. Grumble grumble ;) When the Deities' Doc first came out, I actually asked the Circle to remove Joramy as an allowable choice for Black Flame Zealot, because I was already sick of encountering NPC followers of Joramy as bad guys in modules (my main PC is a cleric of Joramy). The answer was "no". (And much to the disappointment of my friend who played a rogue follower of Joramy, they wouldn't let him be a Black Flame Zealot either ;) )
Puggle Halfwine 02-12-07, 07:15 AM	... I was already sick of encountering NPC followers of Joramy as bad guys in modules... Maybe if you didn't blow up so many mountains* there might be more love for Joramy in LG...? ;) *I only know of one mountain... ... so far.
Rerednaw 02-12-07, 05:05 PM	Thank you for pointing out that thread, that is helpful. It's also dissapointing to read, to sum up: ... I also read the entire thread where every argument for restricting was refuted and proven to be in error. So why can you add a warlock to a mod to kill the party but not play one in a mod? It's not because of alignment, power, crafting, or general broken-ness. Sadly, the real reason is because they said so. :D Want to play one? Don't play LG.
echoota 02-12-07, 05:53 PM	Want to play one? Don't play LG. Unfortunately that's the case. One of the reasons why my wife and I are more focusing on Xen'drik of late. She's playing a Catfolk Warlock and having a great time with it.
_metz_ 02-12-07, 07:53 PM	4 words. Warlock Dagger Spell Mage. Look at it, you will come to understand.
Arvagor 02-12-07, 08:17 PM	4 words. Warlock Dagger Spell Mage. Look at it, you will come to understand.What's there to understand? Warlocks are ineligible for entry into daggerspell mage, as they cannot meet all of the requirements (specifically, they do not meet the "Special: Arcane caster level 5th" requirement, and it's the "arcane" part that disqualifies them for eligibility).
ragecage79 02-12-07, 09:07 PM	What's there to understand? Warlocks are ineligible for entry into daggerspell mage, as they cannot meet all of the requirements (specifically, they do not meet the "Special: Arcane caster level 5th" requirement, and it's the "arcane" part that disqualifies them for eligibility). Warlocks can qualify for arcane caster level pre-req's as they are arcane casters per their class description, just not spell level pre-reqs because they never learn spells. See CA at the bottom of page 18 for the details.
Arvagor 02-12-07, 09:34 PM	Warlocks can qualify for arcane caster level pre-req's as they are arcane casters per their class description, just not spell level pre-reqs because they never learn spells. See CA at the bottom of page 18 for the details. I've read both the class description and the pre-reqs section on page 18. Where does it specifically say that invocations are arcane, or that the class in general is to be considered an arcane caster? Regardless, daggerspell mage is an incredibly inadequate class for taking advantage of the warlock's abilities. Many of the DSM's abilities require the PC to sacrifice a spell slot (Arcane Infusion) or to cast spells through his daggers (Daggercast, Invocation of the Knife, Double Daggercast, Arcane Throw). All of those abilities are essentially wasted -- the warlock does not have slots to give up (so Arcane Infusion is useless), nor does he cast spells (so all the other aforementioned abilities are useless).
Britt 02-12-07, 09:40 PM	Just wondering the reasoning behind why the Warlock isn't allowed in LG? Gnomes.
Vanadium 02-12-07, 09:56 PM	Gnomes. Knew it. Its always the Gnomes.
catsclaw 02-12-07, 09:57 PM	I've read both the class description and the pre-reqs section on page 18. Where does it specifically say that invocations are arcane, or that the class in general is to be considered an arcane caster?Complete Arcane, p. 7: "A warlock does not prepare or cast spells as other wielders of arcane magic do." Complete Arcane, p. 4: "A number of terms can be used to describe arcane spell-casters ... Warlock: A member of the warlock class, described in this book beginning on page 5." And, I hesitate to point out, the title of the book itself.
Arvagor 02-12-07, 10:44 PM	I'll accept your first two (even though both are outside the actual class description), but your last means that a hexblade is a fighter caster, and a spellthief is an adventurer caster ;)
LGMoses 02-13-07, 10:47 AM	Gnomes. Gnomes? I just don't like the flavor of the warlock myself. Ofcourse, I also have one in Xen'drik Expeditions.