Do warlocks fit into the Forgotten Realms?

[HEEGZ]

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.

Agree. Since Mik has stated her wish to leave the class in, I'm curious to see what rule we will have in place to prevent asinine MC builds. IMO one is needed, see WW's post as he explains better than I could.

- HEEGZ

[Blackwill]

I know next to nothing about warlocks. The only thing I wish to add, is as what some of you have already said. If this class is allowed, each character should have a grounded background, and players must be aware of this when creating such a class. So this most certainly must go into our wiki, and player guide IMO.

[fluffmonster]

the real simple way is just to limit multiclassing. yes, it would be somewhat arbitrary but that would be worth a good strong dose of simple and stark limits.

[Grand Fromage]

According to the books, the name Warlock's Crypt came from a gradual corruption of the name Larloch.

:P

[NickD]

Agree. Since Mik has stated her wish to leave the class in, I'm curious to see what rule we will have in place to prevent asinine MC builds. IMO one is needed, see WW's post as he explains better than I could.

I have a suggestion.

As they are making pacts with devils or demons or whatever, one could assume that means the outsider gets to claim their soul on death. Hence... no ressurection for Warlocks.

[Rotku]

Wait, does that mean if I play a warlock I automatically have the "Make peaceful contact with an outsider" requirement of Blackguard PrC?

[HEEGZ]

I have a suggestion.

As they are making pacts with devils or demons or whatever, one could assume that means the outsider gets to claim their soul on death. Hence... no ressurection for Warlocks.

That doesn't affect the issue of MC warlocks though. Also, not very many PCs get high enough to afford or have friends who can afford a rez. My point was really geared more towards people gaming the class by using dumb MC combinations. My preference is to make them like monks or paladins with no MC options or very limited ones.

- HEEGZ

[Mayhem]

The problem with that plan is that PGers are not idiots, nor are they unable to roleplay.

If you put roleplaying restrictions on certain types of Multiclass, the people who are *most* likely to jump through the RP hoops and write a plausible background story are the ones who want to play the class for its leet powers.

EG, In NWN Rogue monk is a great combo. If I want to play one because of that, I won't say "oh, there is limited multiclassing, I won't bother." Instead, I'll look through the list of monks orders that allow monk-rogue multiclassing, and play one of those.

[White Warlock]

Hooboy, we're going over the deep end again.

Everyone, please remember that fear drives us to remove liberties. ALFA will never be destroyed by PGing. If anything, it wil be destroyed by fear of PGing (in very much the same way the U.S. may be destroyed by the fear of terrorism).

I think i need to clarify that I make reference to PG motivations on a regular basis because i think it's important for people to remember such things, but not to cause everyone to lock themselves in their servers. Let's try and keep a steady head here, and recognize that those who wish to PG, will inevitably find their way. In truth, the only abusers ALFA catches, are the stupid and the unlucky. That said, there's nothing any of us need to do, because the stupid will be stupid, and being unlucky... happens.

Let's focus on what can improve upon roleplay, and upon this community's overall entertainment value. Because, in truth, PGing really isn't a problem unless it's blatant and disruptive to the enjoyment value of others. Such doesn't happen unless the PGer is stupid or unlucky to have been seen doing his ill deeds. If our entertainment value is stunted by someong PGing, he's as good as caught. If our entertainment value is not stunted, then who really cares?

And for a closing metaphor: if we snip the willy for fear of catching a disease, we literally cut short our fun... and our future.

Thanks for reading, enjoy 'your' game.

[AlmightyTDawg]

That's why I think it's probably best to make them a quasi-PrC if not taken at first level. Consider it this way - if you're making a rogue/ranger build, what class do you take at first level, at least from a powergaming perspective? In old NWN1, the difference between the two (Rog1/Rng1 and Rng1/Rog1) was 16 skill points, and the possible difference in survivability to that point. Sure, the whole level 1 thing is functionally arbitrary, but it is what it is and it determines how people play it.

There's no one who's gonna sit here and say because we had a massively higher number of Rog1/Rng1s that ALFA is just a dirty bunch of PGers - what it means is that we're generally not morons. But, in recognition of that, I think you give yourself some room to craft rules that inhibit the more "gamey" possibilities and make it something that's ostensibly more RP-focused in the sense that it's explicitly numerically weak.

These are new "base classes" but certainly we're not obligated to put them on the same field as barbarian, wizard, or rogue. We're welcome to do with them how we see fit, and personally given the way that it's written in canon, I'm perfectly willing to say that if it's not part of your "backstory" that it's something that needs to be explicitly RP'd. Consider this construction:

Warlock (as PrC) Requirements:
Base Attack Bonus: +4
Alignment: Any Evil or Chaotic
Minmum Skill Values: Concentration 3 ranks, Spellcraft 2 ranks, Lore 6 ranks (or, alternately, one of Knowledge (religion, the planes, arcana) at 3 ranks, one at 2 ranks)
Quest Requirements: Two paths a DM can take - a PC coming to grips with latent powers obtained by ancestors, or a PC bargaining for powers for his PC (and possibly that PC's bloodline)

And to Whitey, I realize the "cannot advance as Warlock" suits those only taking it for 1 or 2 levels, but the inability to go back prevents grabbing it at level 1 to avoid the PrC, building up as a more survivable class, and then going back for the cool permabenefits when it's "safe." There are still ways to do what you want, but to me it's about distinguishing the growth curve.

As for "deal with PGing on the backend," my experience has often been from the Admin side of things where stuffing the horse back in the barn is one of the most unfun experiences imaginable. I'd prefer to make compromises and tradeoffs up front and not make it a question for the next two - three years down the road. Or, more to the point, I'd rather put a structure in place so that a) cool thing X is playable and b) we're not, as a community, going to be consistently looking over the shoulders of people using cool thing X.

[Veilan]

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.

qft

Exotical races (and to a lesser degree classes - classes usually don't smell of brimstone, have halos or black skin) suck away attention, force a DM to divert an unproportional amount of time to them, and demand a special treatment of all of their environment. This may be gratifying if you are a profile neurotic, but the "look at me!" mentality of self-presentation and egocentricity is such a drag on fun, time and ressources - and it only gets exacerbated by the medium, which draws everything out further.

Naturally it may not be the only motivation to play such a race or class, but it is a huge factor even with a "well meaning" player aware of the problem.

[Stormseeker]

if we snip the willy for fear of catching a disease, we literally cut short our fun... and our future.

lol caused me to choke on my coffee to prevent spitting it all over the keyboard.

[White Warlock]

Yeah, i had fun with that metaphor Storm

Consider it this way - if you're making a rogue/ranger build, what class do you take at first level, at least from a powergaming perspective? In old NWN1, the difference between the two (Rog1/Rng1 and Rng1/Rog1) was 16 skill points, and the possible difference in survivability to that point. Sure, the whole level 1 thing is functionally arbitrary, but it is what it is and it determines how people play it.

ATD, at this juncture i think it's critically important to point out that PGing is not the problem and that every player PGs the development of their character to some degree or another. There are no pure roleplayers, as there are no pure powergamers. What ALFA strives for is an 'emphasis' on roleplaying and a discouragement of powergaming... but not a ban on powergaming.

What are, and should be, the concerns are game imbalance and disruption of roleplay (immersion, as some like to refer to it). Character development is something every player considers at some point. In many cases motivations for the character's development are a combination of 'player' interests and 'character' bio-ethics. Players work to ensure they develop their character in a way that allows them to enjoy roleplaying while also working to be true to the character's bio and personality.

Seriously, when i step back and look at your examples, they have absolutely no impact on game balance or roleplay disruption... so who cares? As to the woes of administration, sometimes you simply need to stop worrying about stuff that doesn't matter. Player retention is not impacted by PGing in ALFA, because it doesn't happen enough to be disruptive to playability. Annoying sometimes, yes, but not an entertainment killer.

Indeed, the worst instances of PGing, in which balance or playability were impacted, resulted in warnings and bans... so I don't see the need to remove more liberties from ALFA citizens. As it is, those who firmly prefer PGing to roleplay, don't stay long in ALFA. It's not appealing to their style of play, and there are very few of similar mindset here for them to interact with.

But, i do understand where all this stems from, with the decades of computer RPGs that have poisoned the concept of roleplay... and turned it into rollplay. In came the MMORPGs that solidified rollplay, through joint cooperation. It's a scary thing to think ALFA could be overrun by a mass of EverQuest junkies... but it has also been proven to be an irrational fear. It didn't happen to ALFA over the last 3+ years, and it never will. ALFA is secure in that it caters to the roleplayer. Let's keep that agenda clear in our minds, and not turn ALFA into a place that persecutes any form of PGing.

[AlmightyTDawg]

ATD, at this juncture i think it's critically important to point out that PGing is not the problem and that every player PGs the development of their character to some degree or another. There are no pure roleplayers, as there are no pure powergamers. What ALFA strives for is an 'emphasis' on roleplaying and a discouragement of powergaming... but not a ban on powergaming.

What are, and should be, the concerns are game imbalance and disruption of roleplay (immersion, as some like to refer to it).

You and I are in firm agreement on the point (though, I'll point out that to some extent I anti-PG'd specifically so that I wouldn't rise to the level of being impeachable talking about balance issues in other formats).

The difference between us will be what constitutes game imbalance and disruption of roleplay. I see what we're talking about as manifest issues of game imbalance (abilities well outside of anything else comparable) and we have the potential for clear disruption of roleplay (for a class whose very existence in FR is debateable, the endgame of 33% of our characters running around with a level-plus in it is frightening to me).

I'll clearly admit that I see my role around here is to take a "rollplay" look at the mechanics of things, because I see there being "translation errors" between a game with countless hours of playtesting and design decisions, and the format we have here. But just to distinguish that, I'm not interested in one class being above another or not, or "the zwiehander should totally kick the butt of..." I'm interested in a level playing field from an abstract combinatoric sense. I have opinions about things from the philosophical sense, but in the end, my only care for ALFA is eliminating the obvious outliers. It's why I enjoyed games like Magic: The Gathering, which I saw as pure mechnics with only the thinnest veneer of flavor text and artwork.

The format requires things be in a rigid box limited by the confines of the engine, and from that, consequences flow. For example, they decided to tradeoff the traditional combat maneuvers - some like Bull Rush because their engine and spacing made it functionally unimportant - some like Knockdown because the game design was "single-hero-of-doom." In the case of Warlocks for example, some of the invocations simply do not translate to the format, so they had to cut some - the response being that they tailoreed others to balance the power of the class.

Well, for an individual class, I'm comfortable with that - but to the other prospects, I think it merits some attention. And I think there's a way to resolve it that is clearly more RP focused than "oh, I leveled up and damn am I dextrous." Heck, eliminate the multiclass restrictions, just make it simple.

You can take Warlock at level one. If you do not, Warlock is treated as a Prestige Class in ALFA with the following requirements... (see above). Be aware that warlocks can be analyzed for PGing character builds in the exact same way that, for example, a Pal1/SorcX can be reviewed by the Player Admin.

Cuts the dominant portion of the multiclass dilemma, focuses the class on the RP, doesn't get into complicated single/multi-class nerfing questions.

[White Warlock]

It will be interesting to see how this is fleshed out. It's obvious, at least to me, that a lot of thought is being put into this and i'm glad there's a willingness to listen to the insights of others.

Oh, and some good news... I'm going to run over and pick up of NWN2, give it a whirl. I don't know if my system can handle it yet, but at least when i put it in the system, i can see just how much i need to do to get it up to par.