Fiendish warlocks

[Caelestion]

This is a bit of a silly question perhaps, but if warlocks are (generally!) thematically the descendents of warlocks and get their powers from their fiendish heritage, how does this work for a fiend?
For instance, I just bought Tyrants of the Nine Hells. (Being a devil-fan, I promptly had an evilgasm, but that's not the point!) Looking at the falxugon (diabolic courtier), I thought that a falxugon Beguiler with a level of Warlock for Beguiling Influence and a couple of Fighter levels to qualify for Blackguard would rock.
Of course, my inner "anti-munchkin" reared up then. I'm not sure I can justify Warlock for fiends. Any thoughts?

[GoldenKitsune]

I'm.... confused.

Warlocks get their powers from making pacts with powerful entities, fey hertage, or feindish heritage, or really, anything the DM allows.

You want a fiend with a warlock level. Fiends would naturally have a fiendish heritage because, well, they are fiends. I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Melrob]

Well I would reason that since warlocks get their powers from their fiendish side, that fiends surely should be able to utilise the same power as well. Then again I get what you're saying: warlocks aren't true fiends and their inherent ability stems initially from the power of true fiends. Hmmm

I would rule that your Falxugon, or any other fiend for that matter, could fully access the warlock class. They are the perfect candidate for manipulating the devilishly arcane, even moreso than other races.

[hewhosaysfish]

This is a bit of a silly question perhaps, but if warlocks are (generally!) thematically the descendents of warlocks and get their powers from their fiendish heritage, how does this work for a fiend?
For instance, I just bought Tyrants of the Nine Hells. (Being a devil-fan, I promptly had an evilgasm, but that's not the point!) Looking at the falxugon (diabolic courtier), I thought that a falxugon Beguiler with a level of Warlock for Beguiling Influence and a couple of Fighter levels to qualify for Blackguard would rock.
Of course, my inner "anti-munchkin" reared up then. I'm not sure I can justify Warlock for fiends. Any thoughts?

In order of decreasing silliness...

1) To avoid being accused of promoting devil-worship/stupid emo characters, WoTC added a bit of fluff text to the warlock description, saying that they can sometimes get their power from fey or other inherently magical beings, rather than fiends. It's supported by vartiants in CM (and possibly PHBII). So maybe this falxugon (WeverTF that is) struck a deal with some er... dryads or something and they gave him some wibbly abilities in exhchange for planting more trees in hell.

2) His power comes from some unholy contract with yuggoloth loan-sharks or DUN DUN DUN demons! That would be an interesting conversation. What would they want in return? Mwahahahahaha!

3) He's part of some... syndicate? is that the word I'm looking for?... with some other devils he really trusts (well, they're lawful). They can draw power from each other when it's not being used; e.g. if one is ass-deep in enemies he can start eldritch-blasting and baleful utterancing (or beguiling his way out of it if that's his style) by siphoning off a bit of power from his peers while they're kicking back, eating the souls of gluttons by the shore of a lake of fire. Of course if they're all using their power at once, they're taking as much from their clique as the clique is taking from them so they'd get not benefit.

4) You say he's a courtier? Perhaps a vassal to someone else? He could be given his power by another, more powerful fiend, in exchange for being a loyal and useful little minion to his liege. Simple no? It's not just mortal woh can have devilish patrons. There's a hierarchy.

[Person_Man]

Wait, what is it that you want your PC to mechanically do? Figure that out first, we can help you build a character that can do that, and then roleplay whatever fluff you want. You don't need to take levels in Warlock to talk to a fiend, or Blackguard to be Evil, etc.

[Diggorian]

I personally wouldnt allow it in my games, but that's my distaste for redundancy cheese. I wouldnt allow Pixie's with fey heritage nor dragon sorcerors either.

You could make an argument for it; I say heed the munchkin-slayer within. :smallamused:

[Piccamo]

Digg, thats not really munchkinism...Warlocks aren't that great to begin with (I love them, but they're not that powerful). Redundancy doesn't mean cheese...a dragon sorcerer would be weak, as would a fiendish warlock, or a pixie with fey heritage. Monster abilities aren't as good as class abilities.

[Bears With Lasers]

C'mon, it's not like the character would be too good. There's no munchkinry involved here.

Also, it's not like the Warlock class fluff isn't entirely changeable.

[hewhosaysfish]

I personally wouldnt allow it in my games, but that's my distaste for redundancy cheese. I wouldnt allow Pixie's with fey heritage nor dragon sorcerors either.

You could make an argument for it; I say heed the munchkin-slayer within. :smallamused:

Urm.... a dragon get casting as a sorceror as they increase in age... and if they take sorceror levels then they stack with this inherent ability... same way as taking levels in fighter would stack with their inherent Grar!Biteyouinhalf-ness... sort of...

Giving Dragons sorceror levels isn't redunant: it's perfectly right and natural. They're the sorcerors.

Anyway, what's wrong with the three and a half reasons I've given why a devil might be a warlock?

[Caelestion]

The falxugon (harvester devil) is a devil that has surrended most of its up-front physical abilities for subtle, mental ones. They have a huge Charisma, they attack with a dagger that makes those struck wish to do evil actions, they're protected with a constant Sanctuary effect when not attacking and their evil alignment is protected against detection spells. They can also disguise their mostly-humanoid form to appear completely mortal.

They're 9 HD and +4 LA, with favoured class of Rogue. I was thinking that Beguiler suits them perfectly, but with their racial +12 Charisma, going a couple of levels in Blackguard (and thus a level or two in Fighter first), (a) for combat abilities and (b) for the Dark Blessing ability, would provide an added mix of offence and defence to bulk their social skills up with. That was also why I was thinking of Warlock - the Beguiling Influence invocation is an obvious choice for any social character.

This character serves a LE Baatorian deity of domination but, in the diabolic hierarchy, serves one of Asmodeus' minions.

[Diggorian]

Digg, thats not really munchkinism...Warlocks aren't that great to begin with (I love them, but they're not that powerful).

So says you, your opinion.

In my opinion, and in Caelestion's (who feels internal disapproval), it is or can be.

Simply a difference of taste.

[Piccamo]

Howso? There's no gain in power with the combination and there is no trade off of fluff - power. If anything its more fluff...siphoning off his own power/soul/whatever to be projected at others. Just please elaborate on how this is in any way munchkinism.

[Caelestion]

My reservation was on the optimised devil socialite taking a level of Warlock to become EVEN better (Beguiling Influence), when clearly that invocation is based on calling the essence of master corrupters anyway.

[Bears With Lasers]

Um. And you think it's munchkinism... why?

[Caelestion]

I didn't say it was munchkiny, but I do think it might be perceived as if it is. I'm not even sure how you correctly go around roleplaying a character with Bluff and Diplomacy in the near (if not already) 30s, without either stopping every combat almost before it starts or simply not making checks when you could do.

(I'm a great lover of thematic things, but I'm never terribly sure on the implementation.)

[Diggorian]

(I'm a great lover of thematic things, but I'm never terribly sure on the implementation.)

I'm the same way regarding theme, this is the sticky wicket for me. Mechanically and tactically it's tight, but subjectively I dont like such a character.

It feels like hybridization within a breed. A human makes a pact with a devil to gain fiendish racial abilities (warlock). A fiend makes a deal with another fiend and become more racially fiendish?

Not munchkiny, just doesnt feel right (like wearing green, I prefer blue).

[Bears With Lasers]

...what exactly is wrong with changing the Warlock's fluff a little?

[pestilenceawaits]

4) You say he's a courtier? Perhaps a vassal to someone else? He could be given his power by another, more powerful fiend, in exchange for being a loyal and useful little minion to his liege. Simple no? It's not just mortal woh can have devilish patrons. There's a hierarchy.

This was the first idea I had as well he just got his power from a stronger fiend. That makes perfect sense.

[Diggorian]

...what exactly is wrong with changing the Warlock's fluff a little?

Nothing exactly wrong with it; I just dont like it.

[Bears With Lasers]

I've never understood this dogged need to adhere to exactly what the book tells you a class's fluff is. I still don't. *shrug* Crunch is crunch, roleplay is roleplay.

[Piccamo]

...without either stopping every combat almost before it starts or simply not making checks when you could do.

You can't stop every combat almost before it starts, at least not with openly hostile creatures. Doing a diplomacy check takes a full minute (10 rounds). While a rushed diplomacy check may be taken at a -10, a hostile creature doesn't even need to be paying attention to what you are saying.

Adding in the level of warlock isn't thematically wrong because of the vast number of places warlocks can gain their powers.


I've never understood this dogged need to adhere to exactly what the book tells you a class's fluff is. I still don't. *shrug* Crunch is crunch, roleplay is roleplay.

I agree. The classes are there to make the character you feel fits your concept. Thats why my group generally uses fractional attacks and saves and no multiclass penalties.

[Caelestion]

Well, to tell the truth, I was possibly considering treating Warlock 1 as a gift from Asmodeus, in the line of the Mark of <Archdevil> feats. That would certainly indicate high favour.

Edit: I know you can't stop combats that have started, but if you win initiative and rush a Diplomacy check... *shrug*

[Piccamo]

Even if you win initiative and rush a diplomacy check why would the hostile creatures, who want to hurt you, sit there and say "hmm, he makes good points!"? They'd be likely to say "what the hell is he blabbering about? who cares, kill him!" Diplomacy is not a magical effect and thus while they can hear you they do not have to pay attention to what you're saying.

[Caelestion]

Because then you have the silly situation of Diplomacy only working if the DM allows it. It's a rather bizarre skill anyway, but then you're in really mirky water if you try to start rationalising it.

[Piccamo]

True, but its a stupid skill. I have always felt that Diplomacy should be RP'd out, anyway. Really though, in combat your character will be ok at best so he should be good at whatever he focuses on.

[Caelestion]

Still the Bluff skill is extra-cool for the falzugon. If he passes a Bluff check vs. an opposed Sense Motive check, he doesn't register on detect evil!

[Diggorian]

(EDIT: Glad the discussion has moved on. Whichever way you can give the falzugon a warlock level while maintaining your suspension of disbelief do it if ya want Caelestion. I've said my peace).

Variant crunch from the same base fluff I can get with: standard ranger, urban ranger, and favored environment ranger all fit the fluff (definition) of a ranger. They each have different ways of doing what the class says rangers do.

Variant fluff though breaks the form of a class: paladin of freedom, paladin of tyanny, and paladin of slaughter arent paladins at all. If a player of mine is dead set on being one of these, I've got to write a fluff article for the new class which will not be called a paladin anywhere in it's name.

Just a style thing. I like The Roots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roots) more than the Decemberists, but I'm not baffled that others dont. :smallbiggrin:

[Bears With Lasers]

Variant crunch from the same base fluff I can get with: standard ranger, urban ranger, and favored environment ranger all fit the fluff (definition) of a ranger. They each have different ways of doing what the class says rangers do.
You're putting too much importance on the mechanics. The class gives rangers a set of abilities. You can play these abilities in a number of different ways. For example, I could write fluff for the ranger that involves being ritually possessed by nature-spirits: these spirits do things for you, and they hate certain kinds of creatures (thus Favored Enemy). There are beast-spirits (tracking), warrior-spirits (thus your combat style), et cetera.


Variant fluff though breaks the form of a class: paladin of freedom, paladin of tyanny, and paladin of slaughter arent paladins at all. If a player of mine is dead set on being one of these, I've got to write a fluff article for the new class which will not be called a paladin anywhere in it's name. Why not? They're paladins of different causes, with slightly different codes.


Just a style thing. I like The Roots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roots) more than the Decemberists, but I'm not baffled that others dont. :smallbiggrin:The thing is, crunch and fluff are separate things. The mechanics and the fluff have no intrinsic connection most of the time (sometimes, rules muddle this, i.e. Paladin Code).
A Warlock who gets his powers from a deity, or through being exposed to some kind of magical substance as a child, can use the same crunch as a Warlock who made a pact with Dark Powers (or Fey Powers, or etc).

All, say, "Cleric" means is that you turn or rebuke undead, cast divine spells, and are proficient with certain weapons/armor. You could just as easily fluff the class as a special kind of arcanist who delves into the secrets of the universe, without ever changing the mechanics.

Mechanics are just how the game functions. You can decide how to describe them. Just because the book says "Seekers of the Misty Isle are followers of Corellon looking for the legendary Misty Isle" doesn't mean that you can't change that, without needing to alter the mechanics one bit.

[Diggorian]

By the way, do you use Rich's variant Diplomacy, Caelestion? I prefer it much more than the RAW skill.

Bears, you do your game, i'll do mine.

[Caelestion]

I love the idea, but so far, we've only ever had one high-Diplomacy character and that was an LG, Honour 4 Courtier in Rokugan, so it didn't really matter too much.
I think I'll definitely need to flash them out if playing said Falxugon :)

[Tola]

paladin of freedom, paladin of tyanny, and paladin of slaughter arent paladins at all.

That depends entirely on how you see the Paladin. To me, Paladins are basically champions and crusaders of their gods and their god's will. Regardless of what that god is. Why wouldn't gods of alignments other than Lawful Good want champions and crusaders on this plane? As far as I'm concerned, it makes no sense for them to be reserved for Lawful Good.

But that's somewhat off the topic, I guess.

To deal with the topic itself...If anything, they should, if it were at all possible, be able to call on Warlock abilities at will-if Warlocks are from Fiendish heritage, anf the character is a Fiend, then they already have the abilities inherantly-indeed, Warlocks are striving for the full control and power that their Fiend parents possess, so perhaps the Warlock abilities should be stronger for a Fiend.

Of course, this is all just opinion.