Do warlocks fit into the Forgotten Realms?

hollyfant · Post by **hollyfant** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:30 pm

White Warlock wrote:I don't know if my system can handle it yet

Or you could go check what the System Requirements Lab has to say about your box.

coach · Post by **coach** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:30 pm

i agree with the "no multiclass" rule

if you wanna be a wralock, you are ALL warlock

Keith Mac · Post by **Keith Mac** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:34 pm

ALFA will never be destroyed by PGing. If anything, it wil be destroyed by fear of PGing

Amen

i agree with the "no multiclass" rule

if you wanna be a warlock, you are ALL warlock

Simple...I like...Add this to a new poll....see if it gets the proper support???

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:56 pm

I don't like this 'no multiclass' direction these discussions are now heading to. I agree it's a simple approach, but it's too simple. It takes away from the option of presenting uniqueness to that character class. I've repeatedly heard, in the NWN2 bioware forums, that it is a rather rigid class, with most every warlock coming out the same. It needs a little bit of multiclassing to give each warlock a bit of individuality other than mere roleplay and bio.

Let's not run for something simple, without considering what we end up leaving behind for those who wish to play a warlock. Consider that denying multiclass to a warlock is the same as denying it to any other class. I, frankly, wouldn't waste my time with a warlock in ALFA if such were the case. It would not allow me to present my character concept, of a cursed man drawn to nature for sanctuary, a false escape from his inevitable damnation.

White Warlock · Post by **White Warlock** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:09 pm

Vincent van ’t Hof wrote:
White Warlock wrote:I don't know if my system can handle it yet
Or you could go check what the System Requirements Lab has to say about your box.

Thanks Vincent. It indicated i'm well within the minimum, and just shy of the recommended (CPU running at 2.8ghz, which is good enough). I upgrade my video card and i'm good to go at kickarse performance. Need to run back to that other thread that talked about video cards.

Fionn · Post by **Fionn** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:27 pm

coach wrote:i agree with the "no multiclass" rule

if you wanna be a wralock, you are ALL warlock

I'd oppose this. The simple example is a farm-boy Warlock that is attempting to overcome his Father's sin. Taken to the extreme, this could be a Palidin that refuses to ever use the powers. Taken a little more Human, it is a kid that attempts to find a new path (possibly several) without using the powers, but fails periodically (and atones).

If we restrict Warlocks like this, we'd need to do the same with Palidins and Monks. I'd be far less opposed to those, as both are concious choices by the character. Even so, this kills any legitimate multiclassing for fear that some PG'r will get away with something. IMO, the PG'rs will still find a way. Additionally, with a Warlock Multiclass sticking out, they'll be watched more easily if we allow this :)

HEEGZ · Post by **HEEGZ** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:05 pm

I honestly wouldn't mind Warlocks or if they MC if they were few and far between. I really expect them to be well over-represented. I think my problem stems from how much of a drain it is to deal with problem players and I'd rather just prevent that hassle from the beginning. Though as Fionn points out, allowing MC will make it easier to spot abuse, it is just a PIA to do anything about it. I think ATD and Alara summed up my thoughts pretty well, and the only thing I would add is that I'd rather spend time DMing than documenting player abuse, it sucks. Given the discussion going on though I am optimistic this will all be addressed prior to Live status so I'm not too worried about it now. I would like to know if there will be more word from admin as far as whether we plan on restricting them at all. Perhaps I'll start a thread and leave this thread to the original FR topic, sorry Ronan.

- HEEGZ

Keith Mac · Post by **Keith Mac** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:05 pm

FYI Im not scared of PG-ing any class for the record.....concerns have been brought up about the "playability" of this class....so maybe a compromise that after first level warlock would be considered a PrC by alfa's standards to prevent the uneducated from just taking a level?(BTW I would be one of the uneducated...I simply don't make a lot of time for research)......

I guess it all depends on if these concerns are legitimate and if they are actual representations of D&D/FR

fluffmonster · Post by **fluffmonster** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:16 pm

"oh no, this is a problem we have to do something!"

"oh no, we musn't do anything cuz then its pointless!"

christ, you people...just not happy unless its micromanaged.

Vendrin · Post by **Vendrin** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:30 pm

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

No. A few things about the warlocks. One is that those starting at level 1 do not know where their powers are from. And they did not bargain with anyone to get them. It could be demons, it could be fate, it could be a deity wants to use you as a pawn.

2nd, not all warlocks are evil or get their power from evil sources. A celestial's power/bloodline can create a warlock just as well as demon/devil.
And even a warlock who's power is from a demon/devil can choose to do good with it.

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:26 pm

fluffmonster wrote:"oh no, this is a problem we have to do something!"

"oh no, we musn't do anything cuz then its pointless!"

christ, you people...just not happy unless its micromanaged.

You know what they say, if you don't have something nice to say, gtfo... well, my mother was a bit harsh, but you get the point. Let's be constructive.

---

Back on topic, why not just disallow the Leaps and Bounds option. Simple, easy to enforce (DM can force character remake) and short of someone being a real asshat (makes a character just to kill other PCs and ignores all rules, which would get them banned anyhow) it's pretty much covered.

Ronan · Post by **Ronan** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:53 pm

NESchampion wrote:Simple, easy to enforce (DM can force character remake)...

Yeah, cause thats the sort of thing DMs want to have to do. Not going to happen, code > taking up DM time and frustrating them.

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:21 am

Ronan wrote:
NESchampion wrote:Simple, easy to enforce (DM can force character remake)...
Yeah, cause thats the sort of thing DMs want to have to do. Not going to happen, code > taking up DM time and frustrating them.

Is it possible to code to remove a spell from the choice list? Go for that if you like. But to expect that DMs shouldn't have to do any enforcing, and that code can cover all bases perfectly is a fantasy that would strangle a community.

Ronan · Post by **Ronan** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:36 am

NESchampion wrote:But to expect that DMs shouldn't have to do any enforcing, and that code can cover all bases perfectly is a fantasy that would strangle a community.

If I thought that, I should be recalled immediately and could be replaced with a poodle that would do a better job.

NESchampion · Post by **NESchampion** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:45 am

Ronan wrote:
NESchampion wrote:But to expect that DMs shouldn't have to do any enforcing, and that code can cover all bases perfectly is a fantasy that would strangle a community.
If I thought that, I should be recalled immediately and could be replaced with a poodle that would do a better job.

Then why bring up coding at all: What codeable opportunities do you see to this dilemma?

If you're just pointing out that coding is preferable to DM time I agree wholeheartedly. But I think it's simpler and more effective to simply disallow usage of the particular aspect causing trouble, I.E. Leaps and Bounds.

Hell, if it's changeable like spells in NWN were, code it to last 0 rounds or give 0 dex bonus and be done with it if you want it removed outright.