[4e] Why both the Warlock and Wizard?

[Aahz]

To start with, though I haven't actually played a session yet, I like the 4e rules. With some exceptions, of course...

I was always bugged by the silly duplication of arcane casters in 3e into Wizards and Sorcerors. I know what the difference was, but IMO it was a pointless one. Pick one or the other and include it in the core game; if you want more classes, put it in an add-on.

So now in 4e the Sorceror is gone but instead we have the Warlock. What's the point? Was it really that necessary to have another arcane caster?

Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric--all of these you know pretty easily what they are just based on their name. There's a clear distinction between each one of them. What's the semantic difference in English between a Warlock, a Wizard, and a Sorceror? Nothing, really. Picking distinctions like "one casts without a spellbook" or "one makes demonic pacts" is silly for the core rules. The core classes and races should be simple and straightforward and obvious.

Which is also why I don't like Dragonborn, Eladrin, and Tieflings in the core rules. Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, these will all fit in nearly any fantasy setting. Dragonborn seem like something you'd find in a custom setting like Eberron. In 5e are we going to see Warforged in the core rules?

I guess I just like simplicity.

[Goober4473]

Warlocks are pretty differant from wizards. A lot moreso than wizards and sorcerers in 3.x. There are two divine classes, and four martial classes. Why not two arcane classes? Rogues and rangers are probably about as distinct as warlocks and wizards.

The races are just for the spice of something new, which I encourage. Remember that back in the day, most people thought of little people that work for Santa when they thought of elves, and dwarves were at best midgets. Orc was a nonsense word to msot people until Lord of the Rings made it popular. I think the new races pretty well mark 4.0 as something new. Not just like every fantasy game ever.

[RTGoodman]

Wizards and Warlocks have completely different roles. Wizards are Arcane Controllers, meaning their focus is on crowd-control, battlefield-wide powers, and stuff like that. Warlocks are Arcane Strikers, focusing on tons of damage and/or status effect against one target. Completely different roles and playstyles.

Regarding Dragonborn and Tieflings, if you don't like them, don't play them and/or don't let them in your campaign. It's not going to make a big difference.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Why do they have so many martial and divine characters? Let's just have fighters, clerics, and wizards, nothing else is necessary.

For completely different reasons though, I agree that they shouldn't have put warlock into the first book. Right now we have two defenders, two leaders, three strikes, and only one controller. Does anyone else sense an imbalance in the Force?

The sorcerer should have the warlock's place. It was in the core 3.5 rules and is thus a natural choice for a second controller.

I also think that the bard should be in the warlord's spot. Obviously when they do make rules for it, it will be a leader, and I just feel that they should have solidified the classics before inventing all new character classes.

[Goober4473]

I think there's one controller because controllers are the least absolutely necessary role, and there are three strikers because it's the most useful to add as a fifth or sixth character to a party that has one of each role already.

Plus, players love to deal damage.

[Daracaex]

In 5e are we going to see Warforged in the core rules?

Warforged are already in the 4E base books.

[monty]

I think there's one controller because controllers are the least absolutely necessary role, and there are three strikers because it's the most useful to add as a fifth or sixth character to a party that has one of each role already.

Plus, players love to deal damage.

Meh, I think it's more fun to buff the BSF into the stratosphere and watch the DM's eyes widen as he starts adding up the damage. Why do the job yourself when you can get some idiot to do it for you?

[Indon]

Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric--all of these you know pretty easily what they are just based on their name. There's a clear distinction between each one of them. What's the semantic difference in English between a Warlock, a Wizard, and a Sorceror? Nothing, really.

Paladin - special guard for Charlemagne?

Ranger - Special Forces?

Both sound like fighters to me.

[erikun]

A fighter sounds more like someone who should be getting into fistfights that swinging a sword - that's a warrior's job, or maybe a warlord's. A rogue is just someone who likes to get into trouble, and a ranger is the guy who makes sure bike paths are kept clear in parks. I think you're not saying "Warlock and Wizard are too similar" as much as "Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard are classic D&D classes". I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just pointing out that "fighter" doesn't mean a sword swinging, knight in shining armor to everyone.

[ghost_warlock]

Why do they have so many martial and divine characters? Let's just have fighters, clerics, and wizards, nothing else is necessary.

When I first read the thread I was going to post something along those lines, myself. Really, martial characters are the main focus of the book; half of the classes (4 of 8) are martial. This is especially interesting when you take into consideration that the first 4e class splatbook will also focus on martial characters (perhaps because they already have such a large foundation to build off).

For completely different reasons though, I agree that they shouldn't have put warlock into the first book. Right now we have two defenders, two leaders, three strikes, and only one controller. Does anyone else sense an imbalance in the Force?

The sorcerer should have the warlock's place. It was in the core 3.5 rules and is thus a natural choice for a second controller.

No, having two arcane controllers would have been redundant¹, especially when the wizard and sorcerer, in 3.5, have virtually identical spell lists. They held off on making the sorcerer for now so they could figure out a way to re-work it so it doesn't end up being the wizard's red-headed step-child like it is in 3.X. I'd expect it'll make an appearance when WotC gets around to making the Elemental power source book. I'd expect the sorcerer to be the elemental power-source striker. The 'summoner' (or something like that) will be the elemental controller.

The warlock was probably included because it seemed an obvious fit for the arcane striker slot.

Maybe it's just opinion, but I see the controller role to be the hardest one of the four to balance, which is likely part of the reason why WotC only released one - they'll publish more when they puzzle out how to make more of 'em.

I also think that the bard should be in the warlord's spot. Obviously when they do make rules for it, it will be a leader, and I just feel that they should have solidified the classics before inventing all new character classes.

I couldn't agree more². The bard would have been a much better class to include than the warlord, for a variety of reasons. However, I appreciate WotC not including the bard in the hopes that they'll take their time and build the class so it doesn't suck when it's finally published.

¹ We already have redundancy in the case of rogue and ranger both being martial strikers. Maybe a little redundancy like this is okay, but having 4 classes filling 2 roles may have been too much redundancy.
² Although, the warlord isn't exactly a new class, just a re-named, 4e version of the 3.X marshal.

[Mewtarthio]

When I first read the thread I was going to post something along those lines, myself. Really, martial characters are the main focus of the book; half of the classes (4 of 8) are martial. This is especially interesting when you take into consideration that the first 4e class splatbook will also focus on martial characters (perhaps because they already have such a large foundation to build off).

I imagine it's mostly the novelty of the concept. People have been designing arcane and divine spells for as long as DnD has existed, but the use of a similar system for martial abilities is a relatively new idea. I think that they just want to see how many creative ways they can make totally mundane fighters compare to wizards.

[Crow]

I am really happy that they have a martial striker other than the rogue. If you're a rogue, you will only ever use light blades, because your powers won't work otherwise.

The ranger is nice for those who want a little versatility. I think they could have made Rogues and Rangers variants of one or the other though.

[SmartAlec]

Paladin - special guard for Charlemagne?

Even with that definition, you've hit on it. A retainer to a powerful lord, and a protector and bodyguard? Sounds like a Defender/Leader to me. And that's just what the 4th Ed Paladin is!

[Dan_Hemmens]

Which is also why I don't like Dragonborn, Eladrin, and Tieflings in the core rules. Human, elf, half-elf, dwarf, these will all fit in nearly any fantasy setting. Dragonborn seem like something you'd find in a custom setting like Eberron. In 5e are we going to see Warforged in the core rules?

I guess I just like simplicity.

You do realise that the *reason* that you get elves, half-elves and dwarves in "nearly any" Fantasy setting, is because those races were promoted as standard by ... well ... D&D.

(And before anybody says anything, yes of course I know they have their origins in Tolkein, but the modern incarnations of the "fantasy races" owe *far* more to D&D - often explicitly in the case of writers like Feist - than they do to the Don).

[Jarlax]

The sorcerer should have the warlock's place. It was in the core 3.5 rules and is thus a natural choice for a second controller.

i disagree for two reasons

1) stripping out the draconic element of the class which evolved over the lifespan of 3.5 a core sorcerer is effectively a "wizard clone" that shares an identical spell list in 3.5, and that would not change in 4e. since we are already low on classes in core 4e it would not make sense to put in a class which is effectively identical to another. in fact that is the original premise of this thread.

2) the warlock fills a striker role, not controller. with its high popularity from 3.5 and its trademark eldritch blast it makes a logical choice as an arcane striker. it also has that similar fluff element to the sorcerers draconic heritage in the pacts element to its mechanics.

I also think that the bard should be in the warlord's spot. Obviously when they do make rules for it, it will be a leader, and I just feel that they should have solidified the classics before inventing all new character classes.

the barbarian, bard and cleric have taken one for the team along with a slew of iconic monsters. if you listen to the D&D podcast you will be aware that many iconic monsters were purposely left out of the MM to be held for MMs 2+ to help reinforce that ALL MM's, ALL DMGs and ALL PHB's are going to be "Core" in 4e. including former core classes in PHB 2 and onward helps to reinforce this.

i encourage Wizards decision to include a mix of new and old classes and races in 4e. and they haven't done it on a whim, most of the new stuff represents some of the most popular non-core game elements from 3.5 like the Tiefling, the Dragonborn, the Warlock, the intergrated Scout element of the ranger and the more ToB feeling fighter.

[Frost]

I think there's one controller because controllers are the least absolutely necessary role, and there are three strikers because it's the most useful to add as a fifth or sixth character to a party that has one of each role already.

Plus, players love to deal damage.

I think the reason is that even though players hate dealing damage, controller's suck in 4e, and so WotC had a hard time finding ways to make interesting controller classes without actually letting them control. Not to mention everyone and their mother can just stunlock as well or better then a Wizard except the 1/encounter where a Wizard uses his orb.

[Person_Man]

I think that this is just another case of crunch defeating fluff in 4E. As others have pointed out, mechanically Warlocks are quite different from Wizards. But thematically and semantically, there's not a huge difference between them, unless you're really into the internal history and fluff of D&D.

Of all of my criticisms of 4E though, this is the least of my worries. Virually every DM house rules fluff. The "default world" (formerly Greyhawk) was useful in that it gave new players a starting place. But after your first few campaigns, virtually everyone creates their own campaign world, or gravitates to the world that fits their style best (FR, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc).

[Myatar_Panwar]

Not different? A wizard is a person who spends years of his life studying old dusty tomes written by the races of old to acheive his magical abilities. A warlock gets his powers by making pacts with extreamly powerful beings, whose rituals could only be described as terrifying.

So lets see, a studier of old arcane tomes who casts spells through sheer intellect and knowledge, or a devil touched being who uses demonic powers with sheer force of will. Sounds different to me.

Using your definition, Paladin and Cleric would hardly be different at all. I mean, do we really need two people who get powers from the gods? Noooo.

I think your more holding on to old D&D icons.

[Morty]

Using your definition, Paladin and Cleric would hardly be different at all. I mean, do we really need two people who get powers from the gods? Noooo.

Well, paladins and clerics are rather similiar to each other in both editions. They're people who whack stuff with the power of their gods, except the paladin is more about whacking and cleric is more about power of the god.

I think your more holding on to old D&D icons.

And this is wrong is exactly what way?

[Crow]

Not different? A wizard is a person who spends years of his life studying old dusty tomes written by the races of old to acheive his magical abilities. A warlock gets his powers by making pacts with extreamly powerful beings, whose rituals could only be described as terrifying.

So lets see, a studier of old arcane tomes who casts spells through sheer intellect and knowledge, or a devil touched being who uses demonic powers with sheer force of will. Sounds different to me.

Except that those differences are barely noticable in the capabilities of the two classes.

[wodan46]

Warlocks serve a completely different role than Wizards. 1 is an Arcane Striker, the other an Arcane Controller.

Warlords was indeed an odd choice, but was done to emphasis that healing/supporting leader types can be martial.

Controllers are going to be a lot more common once PH2 and the other power sources show up. Controllers could include Druid(Primal), Sorcerer(Elemental), Psion(Psionics), Necromancer(Shadow). Bards are almost certainly Arcane Leaders, Monks Ki Strikers, and Barbarians Primal Defenders.

Controllers have probably been delayed cause they are the hardest to balance, and they wanted to see how the Wizard panned out first.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Except that those differences are barely noticable in the capabilities of the two classes.

This is, in part, because powers in 4E tend to be mechanically similar. Wizards get more area effect, moving-people-around type spells, while Warlocks get more damagey, stunney spells.

[The New Bruceski]

This is, in part, because powers in 4E tend to be mechanically similar. Wizards get more area effect, moving-people-around type spells, while Warlocks get more damagey, stunney spells.

And that's mechanically similar? I would say similar in format; they can vary quite a bit in effects.

[Dan_Hemmens]

And that's mechanically similar? I would say similar in format; they can vary quite a bit in effects.

It's mechanically similar compared to 3.X, in that they're all using the same powers model and the format is almost always "take X damage of [type] and [effect]". There's also the fact that 4E uses a more limited range of effects.

Personally, I like this. A lot of people think it's the work of Satan.

[Talya]

Yes, because we all know what 4e needs is less choice and complexity. Yeah.

If you really want to complete the dumb-down from 3.5, you should only have one class. Each character in that class should only have one statistic. One feat. Since the powers all do the same thing, let's give them only one of each anyway. Let's remove all choice altogether. That will be perfectly balanced, and there won't be any of that pesky optimization. That'd make the game perfect.

[Yakk]

Except that those differences are barely noticable in the capabilities of the two classes.

*blink* -- I suspect I could, with no name, tell the difference between most Warlock and most Wizard powers.

[monty]

*blink* -- I suspect I could, with no name, tell the difference between most Warlock and most Wizard powers.

I think Crow meant that their differences in fluff don't have anything to do with the differences in their powers.

[Crow]

I think Crow meant that their differences in fluff don't have anything to do with the differences in their powers.

Thank you

[Frost]

*blink* -- I suspect I could, with no name, tell the difference between most Warlock and most Wizard powers.

Attribute vs Ref
Close Blast 5
4d8+Attribute damage, and push 3 squares

Attribute vs Reflex
Ranged 20
4d6+Attribute damage
Secondary attacks at two nearby targets
Attribute vs Reflex
2d6+Attribute damage

Which is which?

[Rockphed]

At first glance, the first is a very Wizardy power, and the second is a Warlock power, however, you left off at least one bit of information. The second one is Chain Lightning, which has a Tertiary Effect against all enemies in range who were not targeted by the first two effects that deals 1d6 damage on a hit.

I have not been able to find the first power, but I suspect it is a warlock power just because you thought you were being sneaky. I suspected such from the beginning which is why I got out the book.