We've already discussed some possible subclass names for old classes here. So let's vote on which of the Warlock ideas are best! I've allowed 2 options per vote so that we can choose a second option if we like.
I gather my vote will have little to outright no bearing on the outcome, but I am NOT a fan of changing the names of old things because the new system is inefficient and requires new naming.
The first one is the Warlock. He does not need differentiation form the Hexblade and Binder because he is not a Hexblade or Binder, he is a Warlock.
(yes, I know this has already happened for other classes, but my opinion stands there too; this is sloppy post-editing to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place)
If so, those ones are shoe-ins, aren't they?
heretic ftw
Have any of these names already been used for something else?
If so, those ones are shoe-ins, aren't they?
Hexer was a paragon path in arcane power
also my first pick
pactsworn 2nd
Mentioned in the recent D&D Podcast was that there will be a revision to the Warlock after the 5 Class Compendium revisions are done. This almost surely means that the Warlock will get a new subclass name to stand beside Hexblade and Binder.
We've already discussed some possible subclass names for old classes here. So let's vote on which of the Warlock ideas are best! I've allowed 2 options per vote so that we can choose a second option if we like.
I vote Other. Here it is- Warlock- Warlock. I hate these subtitles.
I really liked Heretic !
Well, I liked Heretic, the game by Raven software.
Though if memory serves, I think I spent more time playing the sequel Hexen.
Ahh, screw it. I voted Witchalok.
I personally feel that the best titles are meaningful, not just cool. So what sets the original apart from the new Warlocks? Gotta be curses, right? That's why Hexer gets my vote.
However, Hexer is the name of an alread-extant Warlock PP.
"Strategic Hexer" :P
Tactical Hexer?
Seriously I bet they'll rename it 'Dread Hexer' :p
Blighter?
Curse-speaker?
Channeler?
Scourge? Blighter? Curse-speaker? Channeler?
I like scourge the best of those.
Well the conclusion I'm drawing so far is that there is no clear favorite, but there are a few front-runners (like the GOP!). I personally thought Curse-speaker was pretty good, but it's too late to add it to the vote now. Plus I don't think it's quite snappy enough.
i.e., no change needed.
Has anyone else noticed in this recent "Playtest" they abandoned the Essentials format? They are using builds again. I wonder if this is from simple laziness on their part or if they are actively backing away from Essentials.
The old format is significantly more space efficient. I expect that they'll expand it back to Essentials style for the actual compendium write-up.
...or if they are actively backing away from Essentials.
I would almost guarantee this is something they will not do, unless they shake up the design team again. They've put a lot of eggs in the Essentials basket so far. I think Incenjucar has it - they're just doing this because it was quick and efficient.
I would almost guarantee this is something they will not do, unless they shake up the design team again. They've put a lot of eggs in the Essentials basket so far. I think Incenjucar has it - they're just doing this because it was quick and efficient.
Why the sudden need for speed? Everything has been on slow and deliberate mode. Why rush out a hack job edit of the original PHB unless you intend to not make big changes? This could be a sign of things to come (one way or the other).
Please don't. Subclasses are a terrible idea. Just keep the names what they are.
i will say it again. subclasses are a great idea, you get a new class and it also adds to other subclasses
My other would have to go with Bane. Bane to me seems to sum up the class, uses terrible magics to eradicate the enemy.
Can't imagine they'd give a class the same name as two different deities though.
If it's been used before twice, it's doubly ripe for the choosing!
Subclasses may be initially confusing, but only takes a moment to figure out. Moving forward, they will be far less confusing than the old system as the classes and builds expand.
I explain reasons why in this thread, beginning midway through the linked page.
I see nothing confusing at all with the old build selections. It is about as easy as you can get for multiple styles of the same class....and when I followed your link I got "No Posts".
A Knight is a Fighter.
A Slayer is a Fighter.
A Fighter is a Fighter.
After:
A Knight is a Fighter.
A Slayer is a Fighter.
A Weaponmaster is a Fighter.
Makes sense to me. Notably, there was a follow-up claiming that Knight and Slayer occupy similar space to the old builds, so it really should be:
A Knight is a Fighter.
A Slayer is a Fighter.
An Arena Fighter is a Fighter
A Battlerager Fighter is a Fighter.
etc.
But that is flawed logic. Knights and Slayers have builds of their own (albeit, fewer choices, but they do: The Knight has a choice of Sword and Board, Hammer and Board, or Quarterstaff. The Slayer has a choice of 2H Sword or 2H Axe). These are builds, with alternate class features built off of them.
Really, it should be:
A Heavy Blade Knight is a Fighter.
A Hammer Knight is a Fighter.
A Quarterstaff Knight is a Fighter.
A 2H Heavy Blade Slayer is a Fighter.
A 2H Axe Slayer isa Fighter.
An Arena Weaponmaster is a Fighter.
A Battlerager Weaponmaster is a Fighter.
A Brawling Weaponmaster is a Fighter.
A Guardian Weaponmaster is a Fighter.
A Great Weaponmaster is a Fighter.
A Tempest Weaponmaster is a Fighter.
Subclasses may be initially confusing, but only takes a moment to figure out. Moving forward, they will be far less confusing than the old system as the classes and builds expand.
I explain reasons why in this thread, beginning midway through the linked page.
I see nothing confusing at all with the old build selections. It is about as easy as you can get for multiple styles of the same class....and when I followed your link I got "No Posts".
Strange. It worked for me. Marandahir copied some of one of my posts and explained it a bit. I elaborate more in the other thread. The new direction is actually quite simple.
Edit. Here is a synopsis. To get the full context, you'll have to go to the thread, since it's a 2+ page discussion.
Before:
A knight is a fighter.
A slayer is a fighter.
A fighter is a fighter.
To me, that is far more confusing, than...
After:
A knight is a fighter.
A slayer is a fighter.
A weaponmaster is a fighter.
Before, there were lines that could be blurred and confusing, particularly for new players. Now, it is much more clear that there is separation between the subclasses. They can now also make the weaponmaster more distinct other than just being a generic fighter. Meanwhile, nothing is preventing you from playing a generic fighter.
___
It leads me to believe that they are going to expand on the knight and the slayer. Again, don't think of just how it looks now, just in how it can/will look 6 months/1 year/2 years from now.
Knights and Slayers are going to have unique feats and powers that are not available to each other, or to the weaponmaster, but they will be available to all builds within the knight, slayer, and weaponmaster subclasses, respectively. That is why they cannot just remain as builds.
___
Try this...
Wizards is (for sake of this experiment) introducing three new builds: the Centurian, the Cavalier, the Honor Guard. To keep things simple (again, for this experiment), a new feat of Jousting is unique to those builds as well as the Knight. Also, the power Weapon Flourish is available to those builds as well as the Knight. Shield Wall is also being introduced, available to all Fighter classes. Now, using the old method, add those to your listing technique (the old, "unconfusing" technique).
I'll do the same here using the new technique:
Knight --> Centurian build
Knight --> Cavalier build
Knight --> Honor Guard build
Feat: Jousting Requirement: Knight
Power: Weapon Flourish Requirement: Knight
Power: Shield Wall Requirement: Fighter
Done.
If that doesn't illustrate it, add a dozen more feats and powers unique to those builds.
___
Old:
Prerequisite: Fighter, Combat Challenge means that I (as a prospective new player), need to try to find Combat Challenge. What is Combat Challenge? How would I immediately recognize that Combat Challenge is a class feature of Weaponmaster? Listing it twice (two prerequisites) makes me think that I have to find two different things (Fighter and Combat Challenge) in order to take the feat (which in actuality, I would indeed have to find two things, only to realize after the fact that I only needed to find one thing).
New:
Prerequisite: Weaponmaster is far simpler to understand and to locate. Since Combat Challenge is a feature of Weaponmaster, I don't even have to worry about it being a prerequisite. I (as a prospective new player) do not even have to be burdened with looking it up as a prerequisite since it's already built in to the subclass I am choosing.
Zealot sounds Divine, as does Exorcist (and in fact, I'd LOVE for Exorcist to become a subclass of Avenger that uses ranged weapons). Demonologist doesn't fit because no Warlock deals much with demons (yet), but Maligned is nice. I'd add that to my possible list.
if it weren't for the fact that we already have an arcane striker whose powers derive from the elemental chaos (chaos sorc, should be renamed elemental sorc, imo, with genasi as the ideal race), i would be impatient for a warlock pact with efreeti (or genies in general). after the primordials, the efreeti are the most significant influence in the elemental chaos. plus, their fluff works well for a warlock pact.
Sha'ir Pact Warlock? I'm game.
an excellent reference. but i do think that an elemental sorcerer better covers this ground.
Mentioned in the recent D&D Podcast was that there will be a revision to the Warlock after the 5 Class Compendium revisions are done. This almost surely means that the Warlock will get a new subclass name to stand beside Hexblade and Binder.
We've already discussed some possible subclass names for old classes here. So let's vote on which of the Warlock ideas are best! I've allowed 2 options per vote so that we can choose a second option if we like.
Waitaminit. None of those are existing Paragon Paths!
The Warlock should be re-named the Battemage, that way we can re-name the Battle Mage the 'Tactical Battle Mage!'
OK, seriously, 'Hexer' dovetails nicely with 'Hexblade.' And, Pactsworn is at least accurate.
Strange. It worked for me. Marandahir copied some of one of my posts and explained it a bit. I elaborate more in the other thread. The new direction is actually quite simple.
Edit. Here is a synopsis. To get the full context, you'll have to go to the thread, since it's a 2+ page discussion.
Before:
A knight is a fighter.
A slayer is a fighter.
A fighter is a fighter.
To me, that is far more confusing, than...
After:
A knight is a fighter.
A slayer is a fighter.
A weaponmaster is a fighter.
Before, there were lines that could be blurred and confusing, particularly for new players. Now, it is much more clear that there is separation between the subclasses. They can now also make the weaponmaster more distinct other than just being a generic fighter. Meanwhile, nothing is preventing you from playing a generic fighter.
Oh you were talking about less confusing than 6 months ago and not 1 year ago.
I voted other and witch, but based on the above definition, which is the kind of magic warlocks were classically practitioners of, my "other" would be..
"Maleficer"
Edit. Here is a synopsis. To get the full context, you'll have to go to the thread, since it's a 2+ page discussion.
Before:
A knight is a fighter.
A slayer is a fighter.
A fighter is a fighter.
To me, that is far more confusing, than...
After:
A knight is a fighter.
A slayer is a fighter.
A weaponmaster is a fighter.
Which to me, is far more confusing than...
A Knight is a Knight.
A Slayer is a Slayer.
A Fighter is a Fighter.
Then tack on an "oh yeah, Slayers and Knights both happen to have this "qualify as a Fighter for Fighter powers and stuff".
My confusion arises with why the hell they had to screw up the process with Slayer and Knight in the first place?
The change from Fighter to Weaponmaster is only acceptible when you overlook the error in creating Slayer and Knight. It's a quickfix. A plank placed over a pot hole. It wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't put the pot hole there in the first place.
My problem is not so much that they're renaming classes. It is that they did something so screwy that they had to rename the classes for it to make sense. And then, the fact that they had the gall to fix what WORKED, instead of what WAS BROKEN! Clarifying confusion that YOU created is not something to be rewarded. Defending the renaming of old classes ignores that it's tacky structuring that required the renaming in the first place.
I tell myself that they don't actually function this way, but the renaming old classes reeks of "we're changing stuff to fit our model to draw in new people, and to hell with everyone whose money we already have."
And it's almost worse to come to the forums and see people pouring perfume on a mishapen monster and trying to call it "pretty". I feel like we should not have condoned the renaming of old classes, and should have let them know that they screwed up, because, quite frankly, I expect better from WotC. And it's distressing to see them getting away with less than they are capable of.
EDIT: I'm sorry, that feels a littel unnecessarily negative, I think. I want to quote House, but I can't find the exact quote. Anyways, it goes something like this:
"The phone is ringing, the baby is crying, and the toilet won't stop running; which do you deal with first? None, because the building is on fire."
Whether or not the change from "Fighter, pre-Slayer/Knight" to "Weaponmaster" is not the issue that bothers me. My problem is that such a change was needed in the first place. I feel like WotC changed destinations, and thus the roads they were taking, without any regards from how to get from where they were to where they wanted to be, and now they're redrawing lines on maps to make it work, and I'm not happy about that.
Now, classes are more of a thematic overarching concept that unites multiple subclasses that each bear those previous features, but classes are still the main requirement for most of those feats, PPaths, and EDests, rather than these new subclasses.
It doesn't look like a patch, just a reworking of the idea of what we call a class. Classes are thematic, they tell a story. But they can be built in multiple different ways, with different types of mechanics. So we get subclasses. Makes perfect sense to me.