Warlock - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Brock_Landers Oct 02, 2015 10:51:11	I think my main problem with the Warlock is the fact that it is proficient light armour, and is broody and blasty. Now, as a little dude, growing up, I never thought of the term, "Warlock", in that manner. It seems like a Nine-Inch-Nails class or something, does anyone else agree, or can help me understand?
#2 Tempest_Stormwind Oct 02, 2015 11:26:25	First, check the etymology: Original primary sense seems to have been "oath-breaker;" given special application to the devil (c. 1000), but also used of giants and cannibals. Meaning "one in league with the devil" is recorded from c. 1300. Ending in -ck (1680s) and meaning "male equivalent of a witch" (1560s) are from Scottish.
#3 Brock_Landers Oct 02, 2015 12:02:40	Does not help at all, bummer, turns out to be some gimmicky, load of crap, as I unfortunately suspected, but, thanks for the effort. Ya know, some of these designers want to leave their mark on an edition, like, Rob Heinsoo, with his Warlord fiasco.
#4 LuisCarlos17f Oct 02, 2015 12:18:23	Hexblade is a swordman with some arcane tricks. Warlock is a outcast spellcaster, too poor to buy a expensive sword. My own version of warlock is a reboot of vestige binder, but each vestige is a list of spells like cleric's dominions. A middle way between wizard and sorcerer.
#5 Mechatarrasque Oct 02, 2015 13:03:39	I wouldn't say the 4e version was blasty--it depended on what pact you had. Dark, fey, and star were more creepy then blasting (point at a guy and spiders or worms hatch out his skin). Devil had a bunch of creepy stuff (particularly if you were con based, as I recall), but also a lot of blaster fire stuff. The class as a whole was centered around warlock's curse. Interestingly Pathfinder borrowed the curse-heavy thing for the witch years before borrowing the simple blaster for the kineticist (and if Pathfinder took a 4e idea over its 3.5 namesake, that should tell you something). 5e's warlock doesn't have a lot of creepiness (except for spells with "Hadar" in their name).
#6 pauln6 Oct 02, 2015 16:15:10	I'm not overly keen on the 5e warlock being tied so fundamentally to the eldritch blast, which I think should improve more slowly but be enhanced by levels of warlock (to limit level 1 dips). However, the tome pact warlock can evoke a broader concept. The fluff of the class features is pretty broad. My own PC is based around a shadow mage, which just involved a few tweaks to the pact fluff and class features.
#7 Nozareem Oct 02, 2015 17:01:49	Before they shut the forums down I would like to state that I like a lot of how 4th ed did the Warlock and then they had the pact blade as a similar but different class. I know WOTC hates 4th and wants to forget about it ever happening, but I think the should port over some of the creepy styled encounter spell from the 4th ed books to help out in some of the Warlock style spells so not all their spell look the same except for Hadar and like spells which are too few.
#8 LuisCarlos17f Oct 03, 2015 3:15:32	For me a "blade warlock" is a witch with a scythe, or maybe an axe, or bettera spiked chain!! but no swords because theses were too expensive and only they could be bought by noblemen. I imagine the blade warlock with other name, the hexblade, like a mixture of arcane version of the paladin and the swordsage from "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords". Warlock is more a walking flamethrower and buff bonus-breaker than a martial adept with a sword and acarne "maneuvers". This last one would be a hexblade (I don´t like the name swordmage, or the magus from Pathfinder rpg). (The gameplay would be too slower if there are too many powers about buff and enemy nerfing).
#9 Brock_Landers Oct 03, 2015 3:46:52	Maybe it's time to watch that movie, Warlock, with Julian Sands and Richard E Grant, again.
(Reply to #9) LuisCarlos17f	Brock_Landers wrote:
#11 Brock_Landers Oct 03, 2015 12:41:19	...you had me up until the chick at the end...

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Brock_Landers

Oct 02, 2015 10:51:11

I think my main problem with the Warlock is the fact that it is proficient light armour, and is broody and blasty. Now, as a little dude, growing up, I never thought of the term, "Warlock", in that manner. It seems like a Nine-Inch-Nails class or something, does anyone else agree, or can help me understand?

Tempest_Stormwind

Oct 02, 2015 11:26:25

First, check the etymology:

Original primary sense seems to have been "oath-breaker;" given special application to the devil (c. 1000), but also used of giants and cannibals. Meaning "one in league with the devil" is recorded from c. 1300. Ending in -ck (1680s) and meaning "male equivalent of a witch" (1560s) are from Scottish.

Brock_Landers

Oct 02, 2015 12:02:40

Does not help at all, bummer, turns out to be some gimmicky, load of crap, as I unfortunately suspected, but, thanks for the effort.

Ya know, some of these designers want to leave their mark on an edition, like, Rob Heinsoo, with his Warlord fiasco.

LuisCarlos17f

Oct 02, 2015 12:18:23

Hexblade is a swordman with some arcane tricks.

Warlock is a outcast spellcaster, too poor to buy a expensive sword.

My own version of warlock is a reboot of vestige binder, but each vestige is a list of spells like cleric's dominions. A middle way between wizard and sorcerer.

Mechatarrasque

Oct 02, 2015 13:03:39

I wouldn't say the 4e version was blasty--it depended on what pact you had. Dark, fey, and star were more creepy then blasting (point at a guy and spiders or worms hatch out his skin). Devil had a bunch of creepy stuff (particularly if you were con based, as I recall), but also a lot of blaster fire stuff. The class as a whole was centered around warlock's curse. Interestingly Pathfinder borrowed the curse-heavy thing for the witch years before borrowing the simple blaster for the kineticist (and if Pathfinder took a 4e idea over its 3.5 namesake, that should tell you something). 5e's warlock doesn't have a lot of creepiness (except for spells with "Hadar" in their name).

pauln6

Oct 02, 2015 16:15:10

I'm not overly keen on the 5e warlock being tied so fundamentally to the eldritch blast, which I think should improve more slowly but be enhanced by levels of warlock (to limit level 1 dips). However, the tome pact warlock can evoke a broader concept. The fluff of the class features is pretty broad. My own PC is based around a shadow mage, which just involved a few tweaks to the pact fluff and class features.

Nozareem

Oct 02, 2015 17:01:49

Before they shut the forums down I would like to state that I like a lot of how 4th ed did the Warlock and then they had the pact blade as a similar but different class. I know WOTC hates 4th and wants to forget about it ever happening, but I think the should port over some of the creepy styled encounter spell from the 4th ed books to help out in some of the Warlock style spells so not all their spell look the same except for Hadar and like spells which are too few.

LuisCarlos17f

Oct 03, 2015 3:15:32

For me a "blade warlock" is a witch with a scythe, or maybe an axe, or bettera spiked chain!! but no swords because theses were too expensive and only they could be bought by noblemen. I imagine the blade warlock with other name, the hexblade, like a mixture of arcane version of the paladin and the swordsage from "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords".

Warlock is more a walking flamethrower and buff bonus-breaker than a martial adept with a sword and acarne "maneuvers". This last one would be a hexblade (I don´t like the name swordmage, or the magus from Pathfinder rpg).

(The gameplay would be too slower if there are too many powers about buff and enemy nerfing).

Brock_Landers

Oct 03, 2015 3:46:52

Maybe it's time to watch that movie, Warlock, with Julian Sands and Richard E Grant, again.

(Reply to #9)

LuisCarlos17f

Brock_Landers wrote:

#11

Brock_Landers

Oct 03, 2015 12:41:19

...you had me up until the chick at the end...