I missed warlocks when they were introduced in 3.5, and I skipped 4e entirely, so I have no idea what these spell casters are about. I assume that they are 'arcane' casters of some kind? If so, what distinguishes them from mages (or wizards, or magic-users, or whatever the default quasi-Vancian class is called these days) and sorcerers?
Thanks! :)
They actually changed the lore between 3.5 and 4e. In 3.5 they were demon spawn. In 4e they were arcanists who received their powers in pacts with otherwordly beings. That's what they are sticking with.
So:
Wizards - Learned magic
Sorcerer - Was born with magic (or fell into a magic fountain or whatever)
Warlock - Traded for magic.
Well, the 5e version from March is this. I imagine the feel is the same, but there may be some changes on the final version.
Spellcasting: They could cast spells like mages, however they only had a few total slots, even up to high level. And the level of the slots didn't vary like a mage. I.e., they didn't have 4 1st level, 3 second level, etc spells. A 7th level warlock knew 8 total spells, only had 2 slots, and both slots were cast as 4th level spells (regardless if the spell being cast was a 1st level through 4th level).
However, they also had 3 invocations, which are like class special abilities that don't take up slots at all. Some invocations increased your at-will eldritch blast, some allowed mage armor at will, some gave other at-will spells, etc.
And then they also had a pact, which gave special abilities depending on the type of pact you made (with a demon, with an ancient fey creature, or "old one" (Cthulhu for example)
Yeah, invocations are the traditional warlock stuff: At-will abilities. Warlocks were the at-will casters in 3.5. The standard evocations every warlock had was Eldritch Blast, that is magic pew-pew.
Now, in 5e everybody has some at-will cantrips, but we can assume that warlocks are better in that regard.
We can also assume some spell slots for usual casting. If so, they will either be half or full casters.That's necessary to make multiclassing work.
In Legend&Lore mearls explained that warlocks will make two choices within their class: The kind and type of the pact. Kind as in, is your sponsor a demon or fey, and type as in: Are you a primary caster, a gish or do you have a pet?
Quote from: 1of3;770779Yeah, invocations are the traditional warlock stuff: At-will abilities. Warlocks were the at-will casters in 3.5. The standard evocations every warlock had was Eldritch Blast, that is magic pew-pew.
Now, in 5e everybody has some at-will cantrips, but we can assume that warlocks are better in that regard.
We can also assume some spell slots for usual casting. If so, they will either be half or full casters.That's necessary to make multiclassing work.
In Legend&Lore mearls explained that warlocks will make two choices within their class: The kind and type of the pact. Kind as in, is your sponsor a demon or fey, and type as in: Are you a primary caster, a gish or do you have a pet?
Book, blade or chain to be exact.
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/b3/9a/ac/b39aac905d4b543dd9660152c010166d.jpg)
Morlocks were humans who had degenerated into cannibals that maintained a technological society in HG Well's classic The Time Machine. Feeding upon the pastorial hippie communes of the Eloi like savage....
What?
With a "W"?
Oh, that's something else entirely.
*Ahem* Carry on.
Thanks for the answers. Warlocks sound pretty cool, actually, though I don't understand why they're 'arcane' casters, since they receive their magic from a 'higher power' like clerics (albeit not traditional deities).
Quote from: Marleycat;770807Book, blade or chain to be exact.
What does this mean?
Quote from: Akrasia;770810Thanks for the answers. Warlocks sound pretty cool, actually, though I don't understand why they're 'arcane' casters, since they receive their magic from a 'higher power' like clerics (albeit not traditional deities).
It's more like scraps of ancient knowledge and forbidden lore than actual invested powers, I reckon. Although elements of that could work too.
Quote from: Akrasia;770811What does this mean?
Pact of the Chain give you access to Find Familiar and a few warlock specific selections (imp, quasit, pseudodragon, pixie), Blade Pact lets you summon a magical melee weapon, and Pact of the Tome buffs your spellcasting with three extra at will cantrips.
Those can all be expanded upon with invocations, and when combined with choice of patron type (Archfey, Fiend, or Great Old One) allows for a pretty wide variety of character gimmicks.
Keep in mind this is all from the leaked phb doc so may not make the final cut.
yep, tomb is more of a specialty that emulates magic users, chain is your traditional warlock with his imp familiar, and blade allows more of a melee warlock
They covered it but expect changes from the playtest version.
That sounds really cool.
Quote from: Akrasia;770810Thanks for the answers. Warlocks sound pretty cool, actually, though I don't understand why they're 'arcane' casters, since they receive their magic from a 'higher power' like clerics (albeit not traditional deities).
That's in fact a very interesting question. What makes a god a god. Why is Odin a god and Titania is not, even though both can offer the mojo?
If you want a clear distinction, you can make gods much more impersonal. More like cosmic concepts than indiviuduals. Of course, that doesn't really jive with Forgotten Realms.
Quote from: 1of3;770862That's in fact a very interesting question. What makes a god a god. Why is Odin a god and Titania is not, even though both can offer the mojo?
If you want a clear distinction, you can make gods much more impersonal. More like cosmic concepts than indiviuduals. Of course, that doesn't really jive with Forgotten Realms.
Better question might be... Why is Odin directly investing this priest? But this warlock is being taught, instructed and enhanced?
Quote from: Akrasia;770810Thanks for the answers. Warlocks sound pretty cool, actually, though I don't understand why they're 'arcane' casters, since they receive their magic from a 'higher power' like clerics (albeit not traditional deities).
The best parallel is probably medieval grimoires: more or less all the magic in those books and their descendants involve acquiring magical abilities not directly but through the action of angels and demons and so forth. The distinction between a saint accomplishing these things through faith and a heretic accomplishing them through magic is that the saint is putting himself at the service of god, whilst the wizard is either taking a more transactional approach to the higher powers or outright demanding that the demons and angels put themselves at his service.
So I guess there are two potential answers to "Why aren't Titania and Oberon gods when Minerva and Jupiter are?":
- "Gods" are defined as entities which are the legitimate and rightful recipients of mortal worship. As such, they are able to empower their worshippers in return (or perhaps their worshippers are empowered by the simple act of praying to a rightful god without any further action on the part of the deity in question), whereas Oberon and Titania, because for some cosmic reason they are not rightful recipients of worship, couldn't reward worshippers for the simple act of worship even if they wanted to and have to grant powers by other means.
- "Gods" are defined as entities which grant power in return for prayer and worship. Minerva and Jupiter like worship and give power in exchange, therefore they are recognised as gods. Oberon and Titania are indifferent to the worship of mortals, therefore they are not recognised as gods and if you want them to give you a treat you need to take a different tack. Belial and Lilith actively hold mortal worshippers in contempt and give them just enough rope to hang themselves with, therefore they are seen as demons because over time people have realised that folks who worship those two usually end up doing bad things and coming to bad ends.
Warlocks are Clerics.
Not really, but there is a similarity in that they get power from a more powerful being.
Quote from: Bill;770891Warlocks are Clerics.
Not really, but there is a similarity in that they get power from a more powerful being.
They are clerics, but clerics of Gods that are pretty weak and desperate for worshipers.
Most gods have so many followers that they only really pay attention to their clerics when they hit level 20. Gods who have Warlocks have so few follower that they are paying attention to them at level 1.
Quote from: jadrax;770897They are clerics, but clerics of Gods that are pretty weak and desperate for worshipers.
Most gods have so many followers that they only really pay attention to their clerics when they hit level 20. Gods who have Warlocks have so few follower that they are paying attention to them at level 1.
Plot hook gold.
Sure your Completely Benevolent God will give you more power.
Strings? I thought those were invisible...Pay no attention to the Puppeteer.
Actually the Boingboing article had a warlock spoiler hidden at the end.
Spoiler
(http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Players-Handbook-Warlock-2.jpg)
Quote from: jadrax;770897They are clerics, but clerics of Gods that are pretty weak and desperate for worshipers.
Most gods have so many followers that they only really pay attention to their clerics when they hit level 20. Gods who have Warlocks have so few follower that they are paying attention to them at level 1.
Warlocks don't worship their patrons.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;771513Warlocks don't worship their patrons.
I'm sure some do ;)
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;771513Warlocks don't worship their patrons.
'Sometimes the relationship between a warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity.' - Players Handbook, page 105, pictured in the spoiler quote above.
Quote from: jadrax;771518'Sometimes the relationship between a warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity.' - Players Handbook, page 105, pictured in the spoiler quote above.
This actually makes me less likely to buy this book; blurring the distinction between two classes which should be very different is, to be blunt, piss poor writing. In any event, I've never played a warlock that way, and never will. If I feel like playing a cleric, I'll bloody well put down "cleric" on my character sheet, thank you so much. [/rant]
edited to add: Thanks for pointing out the quote from the PHB.
Warlocks would be great cultists worshipping small gods... spirits hoping for more power, or gods fallen on hard times... and there's nothing more dangerous than a dying god.
(http://www.cineoutsider.com/reviews/pix/w/wa/warlck4.jpg)
Quote from: Will;771646Warlocks would be great cultists worshipping small gods... spirits hoping for more power, or gods fallen on hard times... and there's nothing more dangerous than a dying god.
(http://www.cineoutsider.com/reviews/pix/w/wa/warlck4.jpg)
In 4e that was a Vestige Pact Warlock and from what I hear and see they were quite popular so I assume they will show up soon enough.
Vestiage locks ate the 3.5 binder class. What makes it cool is they collect power from multiple semi divine beings. Like learning half remembered prayers, fragmented sacrifice rituals, etc. Makes them like archeologist casters.
Quote from: jadrax;770897They are clerics, but clerics of Gods that are pretty weak and desperate for worshipers.
I like that idea.
But if this is so, why is the Warlock list so different from the Cleric list?
Quote from: 1of3;771730I like that idea.
But if this is so, why is the Warlock list so different from the Cleric list?
It is due to the rules laid down by the great god 'G'. Only gods with a certain number of worshipers can grant the spells on the cleric list, to preserve the grand harmony. Many of these spells are about keeping there congregations strong.
Forsaken gods can't directly grant spells, so instead teach there followers a few arcane spells they have stolen from sorcerers and other supernatural beings. While these spells are useful for tempting followers away from established churches, if they become established they will want to grant Cleric spells instead.
Quote from: jadrax;771518'Sometimes the relationship between a warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity.' - Players Handbook, page 105, pictured in the spoiler quote above.
I find this interesting because in my campaigns I often approach the whole issue from the other side.
In other words, it's not that some warlocks actually worship their patrons in the same way that a cleric worships their god. It's that the relationship some clerics have to their gods is a "you give me power and I'll be your agent on the Prime Plane" business relationship rather than one of worship.
So for me the big difference between warlocks and clerics is the type of entity that's giving them power rather than the nature of the relationship. Only gods can actually grant clerical spells. Demon worshippers and cultists of extra-dimensional entities are stuck with being warlocks - which is comparable to being a cleric in terms of
magical power, but with more strings attached and without the social and temporal power that goes with being a cleric.
(Of course, my campaigns are usually set in Mystara - so for "gods" substitute "Immortals" and for "extra-dimensional" substitute "Nightmare Dimension"...)
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;771636This actually makes me less likely to buy this book; blurring the distinction between two classes which should be very different is, to be blunt, piss poor writing. In any event, I've never played a warlock that way, and never will. If I feel like playing a cleric, I'll bloody well put down "cleric" on my character sheet, thank you so much. [/rant]
edited to add: Thanks for pointing out the quote from the PHB.
It makes sense to me. Some warlocks would worship a Patron in a manner similar to a Cleric worshipping a God. This does not make warlocks and clerics the same. It just means some warlocks would behave similarly to some clerics. Some clerics would act like warlocks.
I really don't see this as a problem. I play a wizard that acts like and looks like, a paladin.
At least in 3e proper, you don't have to actually follow a god to be a cleric (though nearly everyone I've met houserules this)
So, heck, you could have a warlock actually _be_ a follower of a god. It's just a different relationship.
Similarly, you can have a bard or druid who follows a god. Or a paladin.
One way of considering it is that a cleric is connected to divine energies, while a warlock is granted power or revealed magic.
Quote from: Will;771771At least in 3e proper, you don't have to actually follow a god to be a cleric (though nearly everyone I've met houserules this)
So, heck, you could have a warlock actually _be_ a follower of a god. It's just a different relationship.
Similarly, you can have a bard or druid who follows a god. Or a paladin.
One way of considering it is that a cleric is connected to divine energies, while a warlock is granted power or revealed magic.
Yes, and the 'flavor, mannerisms, customs, trappings, etc..' can vary greatly regardless of the class and divine or arcane connection.
One of the things I really like about Pathfinder is that there is an even thinner line between Druids and Clerics.
You can have some very druid-like clerics, with animal companions and a devotion to nature. Heck, by 3e RAW, as I said, you could worship the concept of nature itself and not a specific god.
Conversely, a druid could give up animal companion and, instead, gain clerical domain of Earth or something, and follow a god of the Earth. Granted, still with a 'natural world' spin on it.
I tend to see priests as devotees, and warlocks as power-hungry brokers.
I don't necessarily associate warlock pacts with service, though that is pretty much a take supported by historical views on witches and warlocks as servants of the Devil.
On the other hand, pacts with the Devil are not necessarily in exchange for service and there's the nebulous status of "selling your soul" -- Satan gives you what you want and you do whatever you want with it. I'm not sure I'd call Doctor Faustus as portrayed by Marlowe or Goethe a "servant" or "worshipper" of his demonic patron.
I suppose there's a decently-sized spectrum between "demon-powered mage" and "priest of the demon lords" for GMs and players botrh to place their warlock characters.
But I still think DCC does the absolute best job of handling pacts with supernatural beings with the Patron subsystem.
I've always seen the difference as such:
Clerics: worship their god, through devotion gains divine magic that may be withheld if they are a shitty priest
Warlock: may worship their demon/demon-type creature, but gains power through being taught forbidden magic. Therefore can't be stripped away ad hoc by the demon. If warlocks are a shitty devotee? They just get killed :D
Quote from: Sacrosanct;771791I've always seen the difference as such:
Clerics: worship their god, through devotion gains divine magic that may be withheld if they are a shitty priest
Warlock: may worship their demon/demon-type creature, but gains power through being taught forbidden magic. Therefore can't be stripped away ad hoc by the demon. If warlocks are a shitty devotee? They just get killed :D
I like Warlocks to be very vulnerable to their power being stripped away.
But your example of forbidden magic works fine for me as well.