Do warlocks fit into the Forgotten Realms?

Post by **ayergo** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:13 am

We'll be changing the popular multiclass from Rogue/ranger/assasin to rogue/ranger/warlock/assasin.

Ima make my half-drow/half-dragon vampire rogue/ranger/warlock/assasin kick yo' arse!!!!

AlmightyTDawg · Post by **AlmightyTDawg** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:24 am

It really isn't a trust issue at all, so much as a recognition that if you get the wrong answer, the remedial measures are more or less nonexistent or worse than having dealt with the issue properly up front. I had considered a multiclass thing kind of along Vendrin's lines, but here's my alternative:

"If Warlock is taken at level 1, to continue taking levels of Warlock, your Warlock level must, at all times, exceed your class level in any other class, or you can no longer advance as a Warlock. This includes if you take fighter at 2nd level and are even momentarily a Warlock1/Fighter1. If you do not take Warlock at level 1, Warlock is functionally a PrC which has new requirements X, Y, and Z"

This would have two consequences - it would cut into the effectiveness of multiclasses which are skill-focus dependent because of the level 1 restriction, and this includes most of the classes that directly benefit from the low-armor or high-DEX powers. And by making it quasi-PrC and questable, you basically invest DM time in it and anyone taking it for munchkin purposes is going to seriously, seriously piss off the DM who spent time arranging the plot. I think, all in all, it puts warlock in the spin of the "single-class" and "really weird and unique" the class was meant for, and saves us any of the screwing around and balance issues. Anyway, it's a work in progress, and technically even the "not-level-1-equals-PrC" alone solves most of the multiclass issues.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:36 am

AlmightyReallyFrigginLongAssHandleOhShitILostMyKeysAgainWhoaISuckDawg wrote:If Warlock is taken at level 1, to continue taking levels of Warlock, your Warlock level must, at all times, exceed your class level in any other class, or you can no longer advance as a Warlock. This includes if you take fighter at 2nd level and are even momentarily a Warlock1/Fighter1. If you do not take Warlock at level 1, Warlock is functionally a PrC which has new requirements X, Y, and Z"

I'm not sure if you noted the error in that presentation. It's pretty much saying if someone brings up any other class above Warlock, they can never level up further with warlock. Well, in most every PGer's book, that's exactly what they would want. Most PGing instances are going to be where someone grabs one or two levels of Warlock and then focuses all their additional level building on a different class, so they can exploit the +4 dex presented by leaps and bounds and shits and giggles.

However, I am somewhat in favor of implementing something similar to what you proposed. One in which,

"Warlock levels must 'always' be 'more than' that of any other class levels."

This would discourage those who simply want to feed off the warlock bennies. And, when you consider that a warlock is first and foremost a warlock, by the sheer nature of the concept of said class, it only seems reasonable that they would not become 'more' of something else.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:42 am

Mikayla wrote:WW:
In truth, warlocks provide potentially interesting character concepts.
Just like drow.
It's fun when the worm turns.

hehe, well... do recall, the drow requires an entire infrastructure to support them, inclusive of KOS scripting, drow townships/shops, whips, chains, etc.

Ronan · Post by **Ronan** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:18 am

I don't consider the "just trust the playerbase and enforce it when it becomes a problem" paradigm to be at all ideal. Most if not all of the single-level PGish builders I've seen in ALFA have done unpunished and/or unnoticed. The definition of what is PG and IC varies, and overal the enforcement of such things adds grief. Its far preferable to fix the issue with a few lines of code if you can do so without adversely affecting other mechanics.

At any rate, I'd say enough of ALFA believes that warlocks don't fit into FR that we have a "problem" of some significance. The first thing I'll do is alter their class description to match canon (OE's decription makes them seem exactly like sorcerers, stupidly) and offer some examples as to their origins (maybe a small "Warlocks in the Forgotten Realms" blurb). I think its safe to say that while warlocks can fit into FR, the OE description of them most certainly does not.

The biggest issue is still rarity, though. ALFA1 didn't allow planetouched because they felt they'd be overrepresented, and warlocks should be far rarer still.

Fionn · Post by **Fionn** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:46 am

Without institutionalizing favoritism, there's no way to mandate rarity. There should be a LOT more fighters than anything else too, but we can't force 50% of people to play them. We will need to deal with Tiefling Warlocks, and figure out a way to prevent Tiefling RogX/Ftr1/Warlock1. If there's a way to do that via the engine, so much the better. Until then, it'd be the same as Smurf Sorc/Monk.

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:58 am

I say keep the warlock and only multiclass with dm permission. As for not being in the realms...well what version of the realms are you looking at? As the big WW mentioned, if we go back far enough a lot of you will be out of classes and races.

coach · Post by **coach** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:04 am

probably not, but neither do some of the new planetouched races azerbloods, worghests, calendras, or d'hin'n seem to be FR races either...

but that didn't stop WotC from naming them as such in the Nov 06 Dragon Magazine issue

FR gets new stuff added all the time. whether classes like warlock or races like the above

heck, there are more races in FR then there were classes in 1st edition DnD

to me, exotic races and classes make the PC background too much of the RP instead of the current story/plot, everytime one of the exotics meets with a new PC, another long drawn out background explanation to the new PC drags RP to a boring halt over and over because the exotic's group and DM have already heard the story a dozen times.

saying all that, i agree with nyar that most faerunians couldn't tell the difference between any spellcaster, so no real worries about adding another here

Wild Wombat · Post by **Wild Wombat** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:15 am

Ronan wrote:I don't consider the "just trust the playerbase and enforce it when it becomes a problem" paradigm to be at all ideal. Most if not all of the single-level PGish builders I've seen in ALFA have done unpunished and/or unnoticed. The definition of what is PG and IC varies, and overal the enforcement of such things adds grief. Its far preferable to fix the issue with a few lines of code if you can do so without adversely affecting other mechanics.

You will get no arguments from me. Good luck with everybody else though.

Ronan · Post by **Ronan** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:21 am

Fionn wrote:Without institutionalizing favoritism, there's no way to mandate rarity.

Aside from random assignment, you typically just don't allow the class. Basically the same reason we don't allow bladelings, shadovar, star elves, etc.

Mord · Post by **Mord** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:34 am

Why not make a list of all who want to play warlocks and put the names into a random generator and randomly select x number of members who get to play the class.

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:39 am

Mordekai wrote:Why not make a list of all who want to play warlocks and put the names into a random generator and randomly select x number of members who get to play the class.

Hopefully not NWN1's random number generator. It sucks.

Twiggy · Post by **Twiggy** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:39 am

I predict this to be the new "druid~bow" argument since 3.5 makes that one moot.

RangerDeWood · Post by **RangerDeWood** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:50 am

In the end, this is supposed to be a roleplaying community, thus PG-motivated character development and poorly presented bios are things that indicate a person may not be ALFA material. In most cases, warlocks have great dependencies that can be used effectively by DMs in plots and storylines. The most significant 'balancer' of warlocks are these great dependencies, but such can only be felt in a roleplayed arena.

If everyone truly believes that ALFA will not be moderated by the ideals of roleplay, then warlocks should not be allowed. If so, then they should be allowed. It's really up to whether this community believes ALFA will stay true to its ideals.

Man I'm glad White Warlock's back

Sadly, PG will happen with Warlocks. It's inevitable. We just have to make sure that our DMs are aware of the rather strict RP restrictions that are placed upon a Warlock upon creation. IIRC, they either had to have made a pact with a devil/demon for their powers or have such a dealing in their blood hereditarily. If we remember to restrict Warlock PCs through proper RP then I don't have a problem. The problem is the fact that ALFA has had PGers who fall through the cracks for as long as I can remember, as well as a lack of effort in stopping them quickly.

I'm fine with seeing them in as they make rather interestingly roleplayed PCs, and there's more than enough planar contact in Faerun to come up with a PC Warlock and still stick with canon. I just won't be playing one

.

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:53 am

Twiggy wrote:I predict this to be the new "druid~bow" argument since 3.5 makes that one moot.

Yoda has taught you well.