| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Knight of Argenis Corim Danex Warlord
 6810 Posts



 West Valley City, Utah
 | | 10/12/2007 7:19 PM |
| Your Scary New Friend The Warlock by Rob Heinsoo
10/12/2007 | Link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071012a
 | The Design & Development article series premiered on the D&D
website back in September 2005, and has been a staple ever since. With
the approach of 4th Edition, and our designers and developers focused
on the new edition, this column will be the primary vehicle for 4th
Edition coverage. We’ll not only give you peeks at what’s forthcoming,
but also the “how” and “why.” Keep in mind that the game is still in a state of
flux, as refinements are made by our design and development staff.
You’re getting a look behind the curtain at game design in progress, so
enjoy, and feel free to send your comments to dndinsider@wizards.com.
The warlock wasn't part of the adventuring party we originally pictured stepping out of the first 4th Edition Players Handbook.
As you might expect, the original party included most all the
incumbents, with sorcerers and bards alongside wizards and monks.
But the warlock was in our thoughts. Coming out of Complete Arcane,
the class's chief innovation had been its eldritch blast ability, which
provided unlimited arcane firepower round after round after round.
After some initial shock, everyone admitted that the warlock's eldritch blast
didn't break the game. The class's ability to maintain relevant arcane
attack power, instead of running out of finite resources like a wizard,
had a great deal of influence on our early thoughts about 4th Edition.
We understood that the warlock didn't have to be the exception. All of
our classes might be improved by having abilities they could count on
all day long. Fast forward a couple of drafts into the future. We'd
started understanding that our power-rich approach to the classes meant
that we almost certainly wouldn't be launching with every class we
might want to. Our understanding of the party roles indicates that the
sorcerer and the wizard might very well be standing on each other's
toes and pointy hats. Then, once we saw the concept art Bill O'Connor
provided for tieflings, we knew that we had to commit to including
tieflings as a PC race, rather than just hopeful it would work out
(more on that in a future Design & Development column). And what class would tieflings naturally gravitate to?
A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy,
infenral, or feral patrons? That worked for us. But what we didn't know
at the time was how dramatically the warlock class would improve as we
progressed through design. Of all the classes, the warlock has made the
greatest strides from its initial concept to its final execution. In
truth, we've been aided by the fact that the class doesn't have a
weighty existing legacy. There aren't thousands of D&D
players who have a solid and well-reasoned idea of exactly what a
warlock's powers should accomplish. Whenever we came up with something
cool and flavorful, we felt entirely free to try it out -- instead of qualifiedly free, as we often felt with several other classes. Tieflings begin with a backstory of splintering
betrayals and stolen power. Warlocks carry on with a fundamental choice
of a pact with one of three varieties of supernatural patron. I'm
leaving the specific pacts out of this, but I will say that the pacts
provide direct benefits when you send an enemy you've marked to their
afterlife reward; your patrons show their gratitude by giving you a
Boon of Souls. And when you play a warlock, you have the tools to put
your enemies away. Rather than relying only on eldritch blast,
you'll also have an arsenal of curses (send enemy directly to hell for
a round, then bring them back in more pieces), conjurations (maws --
connected to beings that remain thankfully off-screen -- materialize to
chew your enemies), and movement powers (teleport and turn invisible, anyone?) to get you out of the trouble you're surely going to get yourself into. From the perspective of lead designer, it's easy to see
when a class is working out. I just have to notice the ease with which
the designers and developers create cool mechanics for it. The warlock
is feeling no pain, in contrast to her future enemies. About the Author Rob Heinsoo was born in the Year of the Dragon. He started playing D&D in 1974 with the original brown box. More recently, he designed Three-Dragon Ante, Inn-Fighting, and a couple incarnations of the D&D Miniatures skirmish system. He’s the lead designer of 4th Edition and captains the D&D mechanical design team. Dragon articles require that you sign-in to D&D Insider to view the content. |  |
|
|  |
| | "Look to God and live." Alma 37:47 Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
| Knight of Argenis Corim Danex Warlord
 6810 Posts



 West Valley City, Utah
 | | 10/12/2007 7:23 PM |
| You know, even though I have said I wasn't thrilled about 4e on several occasions, this article may have pushed me over the edge into certainty that I don't like 4e and am not interested in playing it at all.
The concept of the warlock is an evil concept. Having tieflings be a core race, and then having warlocks make pacts with evil outsider types to gain their powers is something that I do not like in the least. D&D player characters have historically been less tied directly to evil--unless the player intentionally chose to have their character's alignment be evil. Having a core class be inherently evil tells me that this is not a game I want to play.
Have fun, WotC. Enjoy your future customer base. Though I may continue purchasing minis, I won't be purchasing your books. Goodbye. | | "Look to God and live." Alma 37:47 Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
| Wraithborne Commander
 4531 Posts



 The Red Light District
 | | 10/12/2007 7:24 PM |
| | I don't guess they could make the Warlock any more bland or one dimensional. Perhaps this will be an improvement. Not too keen on Tieflings or Warlocks being in the PHB though. | | Eye dun no why youse guys think im not relly a person im jimgang from canada but im moving to cali as soon as i get a master card -Jimgang
May I mambo dogface in the banana patch? -Steve Martin | |
| Duke of Spoils greyhaze Warlord
 6934 Posts




 | | 10/12/2007 8:49 PM |
| | Yay, people that agree with me! Yep, hate the tiefling and don't like the warlock as core. Corim put it rather nicely, it's inherantly evil and it's not something I want to argue over as a DM with a player that wants to try out the new core character - over and over again. | | Greyhaze's DDM Spoilers Champion of a Medium Dog & then a Darkenbeast , Raistlin Majere, Nightmare WDQ25/60, Warduke WD60/60, Anti-Champion of Guns, "Knight of Bugbears", and Joke Champion of Venger. Called Shots: Frost Giant in Dangerous Delves. | |
| hup Sneak
 71 Posts



 | | 10/12/2007 10:13 PM |
| A couple of things worth noting...
I have played DnD since 1981, starting with basic, then advanced and so on... I remember the talk around our table about 3rd edition when it was first out - only one member of the group liked it and pushed everyone else to read it and give it a go. We did and now couldn't imagine going back to 1st ed (basically we had made up so many house rules for 1st it was a hybrid anyhow - as i'm sure most people do).
My reaction to 4th was the same as most - Why?!? And really there is very little about 3.0/3.5 that needs to be changed IMHO, but I will wait and see. In this age of "downloads" I'm pretty sure i will be able to read it before i buy the books - so I will reserve judgment UNTIL i have seen it. Yes, my guess is they are after more money - but 3.0 was a huge improvement on 1st/2nd - combat is much easier to keep track of where everyone is and so on.
I don't think one article could blind me to the whole concept - it all works together looking at one rule in isolation doesn't make sense you need the whole picture to make a decision, well in my opinion at least.
Lastly shouldn't this be in DnD rather than minis forum? | | | |
| Knight of Argenis Corim Danex Warlord
 6810 Posts



 West Valley City, Utah
 | | 10/12/2007 10:24 PM |
| My opinion wasn't formed by one article. It was cemented by one article. There are many other details that have been revealed.
You are free to reserve judgment. I am free to make up my mind when I choose to. The article and other information already revealed have stated that the warlock and the tiefling are in the 4e PHB. This article stated what the core concept of the warlock is. You may think these are small issues. I don't. Yes, there are other contributing factors to my decision--other things I have learned about 4e from the WotC folks. There are a few things which I thought were interesting. I am not going to list all of the factors which I don't like about 4e in this thread.
Yes, it should be in the 4th edition RPG forum. Sorry about that oversight. Moderator, please move it.
| | "Look to God and live." Alma 37:47 Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
| Knight of the Round Table Thenameless Warlord
 11768 Posts



 The Fortress of Solitude
 | | 10/12/2007 11:12 PM |
| | Could D&D be following in the footsteps of some video games then? In some video games, the bad guys are the heroes. Maybe D&D wants people to have the option of playing a traditional hero in a paladin, a misunderstood good guy, or an outright villain. | | Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
| Knight of Argenis Corim Danex Warlord
 6810 Posts



 West Valley City, Utah
 | | 10/12/2007 11:36 PM |
| Posted By Thenameless on 10/12/2007 11:12 PM Could D&D be following in the footsteps of some video games then? In some video games, the bad guys are the heroes. Maybe D&D wants people to have the option of playing a traditional hero in a paladin, a misunderstood good guy, or an outright villain. D&D doesn't want anything. WotC might want to market to people in this manner, though. I don't game with people who choose to play evil characters while they are in my groups. There may be a lot of people out there that enjoy playing evil characters. It is not my idea of a good time, though. I have no desire to roleplay an evil character. I have no respect for evil. For me, evil is for the DM's minions, not for PC's.
| | "Look to God and live." Alma 37:47 Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
| SodjG Sneak
 61 Posts



 Barrow Alaska
 | | 10/13/2007 1:13 AM |
| | I will whole-heartedly agree with you Corim. There is no reason for PC's to be evil I have always told my groups that if you want to play evil characters to go and start your own group and that you can DM. I have always veiwed the game as the forces of good fighting against Chaos and evil trying to bring the world to peace through their works and deeds. I am looking forward to the 4th edition but it looks like I have already found my first house rule, "you cant be a warlock, but if you want to make one you can help kill it." Wizards you are starting down a very slippery slope and if your are not carefull you might repeat history (80's cave killings that gave D&D a bad rap for many years) It only takes one pebble to start an avalanch. | | What we do in life echos in eternity. Champion of the Tarrasque Icon Champion of c/uc Horseman | |
|  Most Edumacated zenthrus Warlord
 5104 Posts



 SLC, UT
 | | 10/13/2007 1:20 AM |
| Hehe...the designers have been playing World of Warcraft too much (Warlocks in WoW were completely broken, now they're just mostly broken).
I don't like the concept behind the Warlock retooling. I don't like the concept of tieflings (and presumably Aasimars) as core player races. I really don't like the concept that tieflings were "auto-includes" as a core race simply because the design team thought that some concept artwork was really cool.
While it's pretty well documented that the allegations against D&D during the 80s were bunk, having a demonic race which favors a class that makes pacts with evil as a core concept strikes an unsettling chord with me. To each their own, I suppose. | | Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie? Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers Knight of the Large Dire Chicken Have/Want List Trade References | |
| Alamanther's comeback Sneak
 168 Posts



 Denmark
 | | 10/13/2007 2:58 AM |
| Well, the illustration is cool, and evil outsiders have always been as integral to D&D as dragons to me. I don't think the tiefling particularly warrants inclusion in the PHB, but it doesn't particularly rile me...
That said, I always felt that certain classes - warlocks, warmages, etc., were conceptually redundant. Flavorwise, how much different is a warmage from a specialized evoker? And if you want to create aq character whose powers stem from the lower planes, why not make a sorcerer with a lot of [Evil] spells? It's not all about the mechanics...
| | Champion of the Catoblepas | |
| yack Commander
 3270 Posts



 Gatineau Canada
 | | 10/13/2007 5:45 AM |
| I agree I like the good guys to be good guys!!! Boooo!!! I like the mini though as a enemy! | | Champion of the Peryton Vindicated Champion : Pit Fiend, Devourer DW: Duergar Priest RPG Only!!!! The Drumming Drunkn' DM | |
| hup Sneak
 71 Posts



 | | 10/13/2007 6:47 AM |
| Meh, personally i hate to roleplay the same character ALL the time, the same alignment, the same races, the same classes, etc...
I love variations, i love the classic struggle within - good/evil (Batman springs to mind, Raistlin?) Personally i don't see a need for an alignment system at all - demons, devils etc.. are evil but that doesn't mean all protagonists are evil? Neighboring kingdoms can go to battle over territory / feuds and both can easily be neutral... what about when paladins must face each other on the battle field - fields of honor ... if you've ever read the Lanhkmar books, or Conan classics where the protagonist while not evil doesn't need to be good either.
No i don't promote roleplaying evil but i don't stop players trying out whatever they want to role play - to each their own.
As far as tieflings in Players handbook and warlocks too - depends on if they have to remove something else to fit them it. If it leaves the PHB without spells and full of classes and races... well dunno it might be worth it to have spells in a separate tome. Of course this means more books and more money... ho hum we all knew that was on the cards... ;)
| | | |
| BoloBaby Sergeant
 640 Posts



 Fort Mill, SC
 | | 10/13/2007 6:52 AM |
| As a DM, I usually don't allow evil characters, period. I tell players that my campaigns don't allow for evil heroes.
So they all end up playing CN anyway, which is just evil by another name.
I wasn't planning on upgrading my RPing to 4e anyway. At least WotC saved their arse with the minis game for me by restating all sets...
| | Champion of the Cleric with Raise Dead | |
| Alamanther's comeback Sneak
 168 Posts



 Denmark
 | | 10/13/2007 7:12 AM |
| I haven't DM'ed in a while, but I would allow an evil character if it enhanced the plot (i.e. with the other characters eventually figuring out he was working for the bad guys, or with the evil character trying to redeem himself). The problem with evil characters as I see it is that they can be destructive and ruin the fun for everyone if they betray the party and lead to everyone losing their pcs.
I don't have any issues with chaotic pcs - in fact, those make excellent protagonists in a setting oppressed by a lawful evil religion, for instance. | | Champion of the Catoblepas | |
| SodjG Sneak
 61 Posts



 Barrow Alaska
 | | 10/13/2007 9:13 AM |
| | What happened in the 80's bunk or not the aligations alone damaged the game for years. I still know people that think that the game is of "the devil" (waterboy) and now wizards is introducing a character that makes deals with dark powers to gain powers, slippery slope. One deranged person that decides to act out the game in reallife could damage the perception of the game for many more years to come. Mass media will try to make the connection between the game and the event because of what is written in the books that were used as the rules. How many cases of real-life crime have been blamed on a movie or copy-cat event that has happened in the past. That is why there are so many schools where you have to go through a metal detector to get to class. If you give them something to make a conection with, they will true or not they dont care if it will help their story. There are whole groups of people that will start to fight to have the game removed from the shelf just like in the 80's. The game I think is just starting to loose the stigma. Lets keep it that way. | | What we do in life echos in eternity. Champion of the Tarrasque Icon Champion of c/uc Horseman | |
| Squid Sneak
 91 Posts



 Atlanta, GA
 | | 10/13/2007 3:43 PM |
| Okay, this now makes the fourth time I've tried to post in this thread... so here goes.
Um... can someone point out in that article exactly where it says warlocks have to be evil? Same thing with tieflings? I can't find it... because it's not there.
In the article it mentions that warlocks gain their powers from making pacts with outsiders. It doesn't mention what alignment the power are. In other articles, it mentions that there are several different flavors of warlock, based on who you pact with. Sending your enemies to hell? Doesn't the banish spell already do that, for example? Summoning mouths to feed on your enemies? How is that different from fireballing your enemy? (Not to mention the several spells already in existance that use a mouth full of teeth symbology to hurt your enemies.) As for teleporting and turning invisible... really, come on. You don't have to be evil to do that.
As for tieflings... overcoming your heritage is a very common concept in mythology and fiction of all genres. It's also a major tenet of most religions! In a lot of ways, you're talking about the concept of being born into sin. It's prejudice, in a way... you'll always be looked down on for being a tiefling, no matter what your alignment is. You could be a paladin tiefling and still some people would wonder about you.
3rd... dang it, once the rules come out, it's your game... you don't like the rule, change it! There's no gaming hit squad that is going to come arrest you because you didn't use Chart #37 on pg. 229 last session properly. You don't need to look over your shoulder for stealthy ninjas because you use critical fumbles along with critical hits. It's your table and your game... run it how you see fit.
Let me finish by saying that I've been playing and running D&D for almost 30 years now, and I don't allow evil PCs at my table, either. This is a game based around the concepts of good overcoming evil, not evil over good. I don't run evil based games, and I won't. (Although I did run a short campaign once where the PCs were in my world's version of hell but didn't know it. They were good aligned, sent their by a god to retrieve an item, but had memory problems due to the interference of another god. Fun times.)
Squid | | I speak to you now of the fall of giants, the passing of ages, the burial of heroes, the death of kings.
Called Shot Dungeons of Dread - Lizardfolk Fighter | |
| Knight of Argenis Corim Danex Warlord
 6810 Posts



 West Valley City, Utah
 | | 10/13/2007 3:59 PM |
| Posted By Squid on 10/13/2007 3:43 PM
3rd... dang it, once the rules come out, it's your game... you don't like the rule, change it! There's no gaming hit squad that is going to come arrest you because you didn't use Chart #37 on pg. 229 last session properly. You don't need to look over your shoulder for stealthy ninjas because you use critical fumbles along with critical hits. It's your table and your game... run it how you see fit.
Well, it's my table and my money, so I will run it how I see fit by running 3.5 for years to come and not purchasing 4e. Not liking 4e is actually a popular opinion among many people I know personally. I would say that at least 75% of the people I have spoken with about 4e face to face prefer sticking with 3.5 and the investment we have already made (it's not a broken game, so it doesn't NEED replacement) over 4e.
| | "Look to God and live." Alma 37:47 Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
| Lord_rock Underboss
 2024 Posts



 Portland OR
 | | 10/13/2007 4:22 PM |
| It's kinda funny... our DM does allow us to play evil sometimes, but then we always lose... it's great... but we still keep trying every now and then. Then again as "good guys" we typically cause just as much mayhem as the bad guys when we try to defeat the baddies... its all good fun...
I like tieflings as core race... I love warlock as core class... hope they live up to my expectations however... | | Rock Bottom Pricing: Arcane Archer 30, Centaur Hero 67, Human Cleric of Bane 25, Gold Champion 34, Death Knight 52, Goblin Blackblade 9, Silentwolf Goblin 7, Orc Raider 10, Dwarf axefighter 9, Healer 9, Thaskor 65, Aspect of Demogorgon 71, Ogre 9, Fire Giant 79, Human Wanderer 7, Drunken Master 18, Barghest 12, Longstider Barbarian 27, Longtooth Barbarian 22, Frost Giant 76, Ravenous Vampire 42, Large Earth Elemental: priceless | |
| guacamole Sneak
 134 Posts




 | | 10/13/2007 5:30 PM |
| | Geh. Alot of you are confusing "fluff" with "rules". "Fluff" is the over arching narrative that has little to no effect on game mechanics. If you don't like the "fluff" then you should change it. By all accounts, if you aren't running the "default" game world (which means you are runnning homebrew) then you probably should change some aspect of it to fit in with your campaign. If you don't like the "evil" requirement for a class, drop it and retool the fluff. In my favorite 3.5 campaign, there was no alignment requirement for any classes, which we decided represented more "skill sets" than "outlooks". It's a pretty flimsy reason to dislike a product, especially if you are wedded to a game system that already has an "evil" requirement for classes. If you don't like 4e, cheers. Vote with your dollars. But if the reason that seals it for you comes down to the fact that, essentially, you are too lazy to rewrite the rules to suit yourself, consider sparing the public pontification. | | Champion of the Froghemoth Knight of Beholder-Kin Squire of Low-Level uniques | |
| SodjG Sneak
 61 Posts



 Barrow Alaska
 | | 10/13/2007 6:15 PM |
| | I agree guacamole and I will change some of the rules. I like the majority of the 4e concepts and look forward to its release. The thing that worries me is that some idiot will do something stupid and will cause all of the greif of the past over again. D&D and D&D players will have to start defending the game that we all love to play to those that dont understand that the game doesent make peolpe do what they do, but it is their disturbed minds that are to blame. The media and those that are easly persuaded will begin to blame the game, and both the RPG and DDM side of the game will lose players because of outside influences. Yes anything can be blamed on anything but why give them cause? If you have the chance to nip it in the bud before it even begins why risk lossing existing players and future players because it has once again become a "game of the ocult". Wizards could lose alot of money and there may never be a 5th edition because of the choices that are made now lol. | | What we do in life echos in eternity. Champion of the Tarrasque Icon Champion of c/uc Horseman | |
| wicked cool Underboss
 2130 Posts




 | | 10/13/2007 6:22 PM |
| | no problem with evil characters. everyone dosnt have to be stereotype hero. Warlock too me isnt as interesting as a wizard or sorcerer character. im liking the 4th edition changes so far. 4.0 is a wayo make wotc money.Too me its genius. percentage of new players will probably be greater than players lost. | | The ROCK layeth the smacketh down. Long live Farscape Vindicated-CHAMPION of the INTELLECT DEVOURER i will change my avatar when martin completes dances with dragons | |
| vanrulzz Commander
 2563 Posts



 ¯\(°_o)/¯
 | | 10/13/2007 6:28 PM |
| i like warlocks and tieflings, and what i hate is the fact that on the internet people wont stop whining.
*ducks behind cover to avoid the immenent flames* | | | |
| guacamole Sneak
 134 Posts




 | | 10/13/2007 7:12 PM |
| | I'm not worried about DnD getting too much negative press. In this day and age of Rockstar's Manhunt 2, DnD is downright tame. | | Champion of the Froghemoth Knight of Beholder-Kin Squire of Low-Level uniques | |
| Star Sergeant
 978 Posts



 New Britain, CT
 | | 10/13/2007 7:35 PM |
| I've played a couple of evil characters. One started as true neutral and shifted towards evil as he struggled with his moral and ethical choices. Two were in actual evil campaigns. They were fun characters to roleplay for a short while but I wouldn't want to encourage new players to play evil characters. Putting inherently evil races and classes in the core books does that.
I don't have a problem with Tieflings or Warlocks. I just don't think that they should be core.
By the way - including Tieflings as a core race because of the concept art is crazy. They should have decided what the core races should be and then commisioned the concept art to support their decision - not the other way around. | | Champion of Gromph Baenre | |
| hup Sneak
 71 Posts



 | | 10/13/2007 8:09 PM |
| I agree with Corim Danex, that the game doesn't seem broken (well not in a serious enough way to warrant a complete re-write and this seems like a big money grab to me) and everyone has their own opinion - which is what makes them opinions.
Personally i have avoided reading anything about 4th since it was mentioned (why i'd prefer this thread to be in the other forum - because it is here i read it) because until i see the whole thing - i don't see a point in looking at one change at a time. I'd like to see how it all fit together before making a judgment. I think we will stick at 3.5 for years to come simply because the 4.0 release schedule is silly - one book at a time?; plus we have a huge collection of 3.5 books.
As to the shouldn't play evil or have evil in the game because it will lead to right wing conservatives to speak out against it?? Umm sorry i don't listen to popular opinion on what i should listen to or play - i make my own choices. :) | | | |
| Knight of Argenis Corim Danex Warlord
 6810 Posts



 West Valley City, Utah
 | | 10/14/2007 12:19 AM |
| Posted By guacamole on 10/13/2007 5:30 PM But if the reason that seals it for you comes down to the fact that, essentially, you are too lazy to rewrite the rules to suit yourself, consider sparing the public pontification. No, the reason is not because I am too lazy to rewrite the rules. I have actually been considering designing my own homebrew campaign setting for 3.5 around the time that 4e comes out. That takes a lot more work than tweaking rules like which classes or races are allowed or whatever solution could be found to the warlock/tiefling problems. It especially takes more work if effort is made to balance the adjusted races so that they would be fairly evenly balanced with each other, but different in many respects from the 3.5 core races, for example. Even if I don't get around to designing my own campaign world for friends/family use, I think it will take more work staying with 3.5 for years and years to come than it would just buying all the 4e stuff as it comes. This is because they won't be making more adventures for 3.5. It takes more work writing good adventures than it does house ruling races and classes, etc. At least for me, it does. I am not such an experienced DM that I can throw together good adventures in a short period of times.
I am not pontificating or saying what others should do in their games. I even acknowledged in an earlier post that there are those who enjoy evil groups. I just don't participate in those groups myself. Nowhere in my posts did I tell other people here at maxminis not to get 4e nor did I tell them not to have evil characters in their gaming sessions. I simply said that I am not interested in purchasing a game with core tieflings and warlocks, among other issues. I am one person talking about my future spending habits and letting WotC know that they have lost me as a future customer for D&D.
I am letting WotC know that I have completely lost interest in their 4e product--as I said previously not solely because of the tiefling/warlock issues, but because of several issues that when this was added on top, it removed all desire I had left to even find out more about 4e. There was another Playtesting article that I hadn't read yet. I had read each playtesting article previously. I read the warlock article first and no longer had interest in reading the new playtesting article anyway, since I won't be buying 4e.
I hear people growing weary of complaints about 4e. That's nice. I grow weary of being told not to complain about 4e. But me stating that I am tired of hearing people complain about me voicing my genuine dislikes for 4e isn't going to stop them from complaining either.
Now is the best time to complain about 4e and give the reasons why. Here is why: the edition hasn't been finalized yet. If they get a bunch of feedback after they have printed 4e, then it's pretty useless. Unless they would be making a 4.5 after that, because it would be too late to change 4e when it's already been printed. The thing is, however, not going to be removing the tiefling and warlock from the core PHB for 4e just because several people say they really don't like it. They have already decided to include them and they are not really listening to the complaints that have been aired anyway.
| | "Look to God and live." Alma 37:47 Vindicated Champ of Hippogriff (Arcadian Hippogriff) and Uncommon Horse | |
| vanrulzz Commander
 2563 Posts



 ¯\(°_o)/¯
 | | 10/14/2007 8:11 AM |
| Posted By guacamole on 10/13/2007 7:12 PM I'm not worried about DnD getting too much negative press. In this day and age of Rockstar's Manhunt 2, DnD is downright tame.
of course you are comparing it to a total extreme. Manhunt 2 got an Adults Only rating and is not sold in most stores due to that. I do agree with your point though, just had to nitpick :) | | | |
| vanrulzz Commander
 2563 Posts



 ¯\(°_o)/¯
 | | 10/14/2007 8:21 AM |
| Posted By Star on 10/13/2007 7:35 PM By the way - including Tieflings as a core race because of the concept art is crazy. They should have decided what the core races should be and then commisioned the concept art to support their decision - not the other way around. i doubt they actually made a core race decision that spontaneously. They probably were inspired by the concept art during the brainstorming stage, but i bet there are a lot of races that dropped out through the design process, and Tiefling was not one of them.
| | | |
| Star Sergeant
 978 Posts



 New Britain, CT
 | | 10/14/2007 2:40 PM |
| Posted By vanrulzz on 10/14/2007 8:21 AM
i doubt they actually made a core race decision that spontaneously. They probably were inspired by the concept art during the brainstorming stage, but i bet there are a lot of races that dropped out through the design process, and Tiefling was not one of them.
From the article above:
Then, once we saw the concept art Bill O'Connor provided for tieflings, we knew that we had to commit to including tieflings as a PC race
| | Champion of Gromph Baenre | |
| berus316 Sergeant
 656 Posts



 Markham, Ontario Canada
 | | 10/14/2007 5:07 PM |
| So who was the Tiefling in LotR? Oh yeah, there wasn't one, therefore, there shouldn't be one in Core DnD. nuff said on that. If it's in 4E, then it won't be used in my campaigns, waste of paper WotC. Don't print it.
As for the Warlock, sounds like a cool class. Will make a good villain. I don't like evil campaigns much either, but could be an interesting experiment for a player. | | Champion of the Aspect of Gruumsh Nemesis of Gnomes and Warforged
References http://maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12304 H/W List http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=berus316 | |
| Duke of Spoils greyhaze Warlord
 6934 Posts




 | | 10/14/2007 5:51 PM |
| Posted By Squid on 10/13/2007 3:43 PM Um... can someone point out in that article exactly where it says warlocks have to be evil? Same thing with tieflings? I can't find it... because it's not there. I'll take a quick stab at this. Tieflings are the offspring of demons, demons are inherantly evil (redeemed succubus' astride vrocks aside). It should truly be unique to have such a creature be "good" enough that they could be heroes... therefore, they are generally going to be evil. So, we have an infernal race.
Next we have warlocks. Characters that make pacts with outsiders... how many good outsiders make pacts? Generally if you're a good guy, you just help out another good guy, you don't bind them to their word. The pact is needed to keep something evil in line, so pacts (basically) require and evil entity in order to function or really exist.
If it's the type of character that is only going to be played occassionally - why would you make it core? Core races/classes are characters arch-types you should want to play frequently. Tiefling Warlock should be in a monster manual only, and have a special conversion suppliment like Drow, Minotaur and Yuan-ti - they should not be core. | | Greyhaze's DDM Spoilers Champion of a Medium Dog & then a Darkenbeast , Raistlin Majere, Nightmare WDQ25/60, Warduke WD60/60, Anti-Champion of Guns, "Knight of Bugbears", and Joke Champion of Venger. Called Shots: Frost Giant in Dangerous Delves. | |
| hup Sneak
 71 Posts



 | | 10/15/2007 4:08 AM |
| Firstly berus316 - "So who was the Tiefling in LotR?" - you might be confusing DnD with MERPs - there is very little from LoTR in DnD that isn't in common folklore as well. There is a conversion book for MERPs to DnD somewhere i remember it from many years ago.
Second wow much hatred for the tiefling and warlock - but while teiflings should be evil, warlocks can be good as long as they are chaotic.
Each to their own. | | | |
| The Great Choco Monster Ghendar Warlord
 12482 Posts



 The G Spot
 | | 10/15/2007 4:28 AM |
| For me the decision not to allow Teiflings is all based on my campaign world design. I can't imagine ever wanting to design a D&D world where Tieflings feature prominently. On the other hand, If I were playing a Planescape type game then it's appropriate to include them.
Getting to warlocks, I found the 3.5 warlock boring and totally uninspiring. I'll wait and see if WotC has improved the class. I fail to see how they couldn't improve it. I also like the fey connection for the warlock rather than the infernal connection (ugh!) | | WotC - making me wish more and more every day for a return to the TSR days. :( I fought the snark and the snark won. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack!
Some of my favorite Maxminis quotes I actually love to be swallowed. - Posted By gss_000 on 09/04/2007 2:32 PM Could somebody explain Snatch to me? I understand the basics, but not how to enter/use it. - Posted by orcmonk220 G's the man. - Posted By greyhaze on 11/11/2008 8:58 AM | |
| berus316 Sergeant
 656 Posts



 Markham, Ontario Canada
 | | 10/15/2007 5:37 AM |
| Firstly berus316 - "So who was the Tiefling in LotR?" - you might be confusing DnD with MERPs - there is very little from LoTR in DnD that isn't in common folklore as well.
I'm not confusing anything. DnD was inspired and stole so much from LotR, and that's the way the core should remain.
Tieflings and their ilk don't deserve to be in the same work as the classic races and monsters.
| | Champion of the Aspect of Gruumsh Nemesis of Gnomes and Warforged
References http://maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12304 H/W List http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=berus316 | |
| hup Sneak
 71 Posts



 | | 10/15/2007 6:46 AM |
| Well not according to its creator, try reading Dragon #95 where Gygax explains his influences and lists LotR as minor (and even then he had to change the names of anything related to LotR: ent, hobbit and balrog were the only three references) and about half a dozen other writers as major. (including E.R. Burroughs, R. E. Howard, F. Leiber, H.P. Lovecraft, A. Merritt, L. Sprague de Camp, R. Zelazny, and others)
Incidentally the major influence for alignment was Poul Anderson, since it is relevant. :)
MERPs however was Middle Earth Role Playing a game system and campaign based on LotR - but not such a well known game system, not a bad system but never really caught on in a big way.
Tolkien was influenced by Beowulf and other sagas or Finnish and Norse origin a long side classics such as Sophocles and Homer.
Oh well... back to work i guess ;)
And i for one would dance i jig if we never saw another halfling.... though i do love the Balor :)
| | | |
| guacamole Sneak
 134 Posts




 | | 10/15/2007 11:16 AM |
| Yay. The "tolkien wasn't a big influence" debate. First off, there were two writers of DnD. Why Gygax has such a cult following instead of Arneson is odd. Perhaps it has something to do with Gygax's odd bits of blatantly misleading demagoguery like "Tolkien wasn't a big influence", or the dirty pool he played with Arneson over DnD back in the early days. Go figure.
Anywho, it is borderline retarded to deny the influence of Tolkien in DnD. It is true that the game draws heavily from all parts of the Sword and Sorcery Canon (Lovecraft though? Really? I mean Codex Anathema not withstanding, really?), but the characterization of the Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Rangers, Werebears, and Wights (he wouldn't have even used the word had JRRT not assigned it to an undead being in a barrow, gimmeabreak) was originally and has continued to be consistently Tolkienesque. I'm not saying the other writers were not big influences ALSO, but that perhaps Gygax is overstating the case against Tolkien somewhat. | | Champion of the Froghemoth Knight of Beholder-Kin Squire of Low-Level uniques | |
| nyjastul69 Commander
 2712 Posts



 Rhode Island
 | | 10/15/2007 11:35 AM |
| Posted By guacamole on 10/15/2007 11:16 AM Yay. The "tolkien wasn't a big influence" debate. First off, there were two writers of DnD. Why Gygax has such a cult following instead of Arneson is odd. Perhaps it has something to do with Gygax's odd bits of blatantly misleading demagoguery like "Tolkien wasn't a big influence", or the dirty pool he played with Arneson over DnD back in the early days. Go figure.
Anywho, it is borderline retarded to deny the influence of Tolkien in DnD. It is true that the game draws heavily from all parts of the Sword and Sorcery Canon (Lovecraft though? Really? I mean Codex Anathema not withstanding, really?), but the characterization of the Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Rangers, Werebears, and Wights (he wouldn't have even used the word had JRRT not assigned it to an undead being in a barrow, gimmeabreak) was originally and has continued to be consistently Tolkienesque. I'm not saying the other writers were not big influences ALSO, but that perhaps Gygax is overstating the case against Tolkien somewhat.
In regards to Lovecraft, he must have been something of an influence as the Cthulhu mythos was included in the first 2 printings of the 1st ed. Deities & Demigods.
Here's an interesting, if not long, Q&A with Tim Kask the editor for Supplement 2: Blackmoor
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23223 | | In the constellation of Cygnus, there lurks a mysterious, invisible force:
Rush | |
| berus316 Sergeant
 656 Posts



 Markham, Ontario Canada
 | | 10/15/2007 11:55 AM |
| Posted By guacamole on 10/15/2007 11:16 AM Yay. The "tolkien wasn't a big influence" debate. First off, there were two writers of DnD. Why Gygax has such a cult following instead of Arneson is odd. Perhaps it has something to do with Gygax's odd bits of blatantly misleading demagoguery like "Tolkien wasn't a big influence", or the dirty pool he played with Arneson over DnD back in the early days. Go figure.
Anywho, it is borderline retarded to deny the influence of Tolkien in DnD. It is true that the game draws heavily from all parts of the Sword and Sorcery Canon (Lovecraft though? Really? I mean Codex Anathema not withstanding, really?), but the characterization of the Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Rangers, Werebears, and Wights (he wouldn't have even used the word had JRRT not assigned it to an undead being in a barrow, gimmeabreak) was originally and has continued to be consistently Tolkienesque. I'm not saying the other writers were not big influences ALSO, but that perhaps Gygax is overstating the case against Tolkien somewhat. Yeah... what he said. :-)
| | Champion of the Aspect of Gruumsh Nemesis of Gnomes and Warforged
References http://maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12304 H/W List http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=berus316 | |
| Puggins Sergeant
 622 Posts




 | | 10/15/2007 12:19 PM |
| While everyone is certainly entitled to choose to stay away from 4e, I'd say that staying away because a class is potentially evil is a bit strange, given the fact that every class in the game (save the paladin) can be evil. A few points:
(1) Niether the warlock nor the tiefling are inherently evil. Yes, they have diabolic origins, but that describes where they came from, not who they are or where they are going.
(2) In fact, I'd argue that a human cleric who chooses to be a servant of Vecna is far more evil than an amoral warlock giving in to his base instincts. The human has no proclivities to overcome- he starts with a blank canvas in life. That some choose to turn to the worship of dark, unspeakable forces is a far more evil choice than someone who has more obstacles to overcome in choosing to resist the allure of infernal power.
(3) Those Tieflings and Warlocks who do choose to deny their heritage and champion the causes of the Just are far more provocative characters, in my opinion. Just look at some of the most popular characters in today's fantasy. Hellboy is the child of an archduke of Hell who has renounced his father's gifts and works to protect humanity from supernatural threats. Drizzt Do'Urden is a child of a noble Drow family and grew up in one of the most subversively wicked cultures to exist in a D&D fantasy world, and yet chose to leave the wickedness behind and now fights as a champion of light. I submit that the juxtapostion between their origins and their choices is one of the reasons these characters are so wildly popular.
So really, I can't see how you can say that these "new" character choices promote playing evil characters. The ability to play a depraved evil cleric or an Assassin is already available, and the tiefling and the warlock choices are far less naturally evil than those other two class choices. | | References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7231 | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |