[Fantasy Craft] Class Conversion Exercise - Warlock

[Morgenstern]

Its not that hard to move the saves bonus from Cha to something else is you want to split up the attribute focus . Cha to cast, Wis for saves...

[Khaalis]

Don't get me wrong - overall, I like the class, and I see where you're coming from on this topic.  However, this part of the design does seem contrary to the design philosophy of other FC classes, which generally spread the attribute dependency from class abilities (so that the Priest has a slight Cha-dependent ability in path casting, and a Wis dependent 10/20, for instance).  This is the only attribute-dependent class ability the Warlock has (the benefits from other stats being only of the generic variety) and it's dependent on only one attribute; hence the minor issue.

Yet on the flip side of your argument on it being a FC standard class design rule, I have to argue that I don't see this is as a part of the core design philosophy at all when I look at the core classes, as so many classes don't fit the mold you describe.

[Assassin:[/b]  Lists 3 favored attributes (CHA, STR, WIS) and more importantly has no full class abilities that trigger off any specific attribute beyond the core attribute functions. The only aspect of the class that comes close is the selectable ability "Follow My Lead" that relies on its Primary favored stat (CHA), and on top of that there is a good chance it will be 1 of the 3 selectable abilities that doesn't get chosen.

Burglar: Only lists 2 favored attributes (DEX, WIS) [vs. Warlock's 3] and more importantly has no full class abilities that trigger off any specific attribute beyond the core functions such as DEX for REF and Defense. The only aspect of the class that does, is a selectable ability (Bloody Mess / WIS) and even then there is a good chance it will be 1 of the 3 selectable abilities that doesn't get chosen.

Captain: 3 favored (CHA, STR, WIS) but has no class abilities at all that trigger off an Attribute score.

Courier: 3 favored (CHA, WIS, DEX) but has no full class abilities that trigger off any specific attribute beyond the core attribute functions. The only aspect of the class that comes close is the selectable ability "Slanderous" that relies on INT, and on top of that there is a good chance it will be 1 of the 3 selectable abilities that doesn't get chosen.

Explorer: 3 Favored attributes (INT, DEX, CON) but has no class abilities at all that trigger off an Attribute score.

and the real "design breaker"...
Keeper: 1 Favored attribute (INT) and No class abilities at all that trigger off an Attribute score other than INT (Instant Solution - though even that is a stretch).

etc.

So, maybe I'm failing to see the true point of your argument, but to me I see plenty of examples of classes (almost all of them) that would support letting the warlock's Invoking rely on its primary favored attribute instead of trying to force a mechanical reliance upon more attributes beyond what the class needs other attributes for, for their core functionality (BAB, saves, Defense, initiative, skills, etc.) such as Soldiers really needing nothing more than STR and CON.

JMHO.

Morgenstern: Its not that hard to move the saves bonus from Cha to something else is you want to split up the attribute focus Smiley. Cha to cast, Wis for saves...

But is it a design necessity?



Edit:
In the end, if its really THAT big a problem, I can always just drop the Invoking concept as a skill and go back to making Invocations act like Natural/Divine spells and then by Core Rules, they only rely on 1 stat anyway - CHA.

Personally I think it works fine to have 1 niche class that is specifically designed as a hybrid between Priest (minor reliance on 1 attribute) and Mage (major reliance on 3 attributes) to have a balance of attribute reliance that is a major reliance on 1 attribute.

[paddyfool]

Yet in FC, characters taking most classes can have a wide variety of attributes and still do what they're built to do just fine.  For instance, although a mage will benefit from high mental stats in general and INT in particular, while a soldier will benefit from high physical in general, you can have a very effective mage without needing particularly high mental stats, and a very effective soldier without particularly high physical stats (although, admittedly, having either high STR or high DEX would help a fair bit).

No current FC class, with the possible exception of the keeper, benefits particularly from pumping any one attribute at the expense of any or all of the others to the extent that they're nerfing themselves if they don't.  This allows them to be entered by a wide variety of individuals, ensuring that a class is not a straightjacket.  Whereas, on the other hand, a casting class with a single attribute dependence limits the viable range of attribute lines a tad.

[Morgenstern]

With the base classes in the book, they're all listing 3 attributes not because the class has abilites that key to them, but as basic guidance for new players. Those are simply choices you will not go wrong with. Seasoned players can (and do) cheerfully ingnore or work around all three of them.

But is it a design necessity?

There's still a lot of room between advantageous and necessity .

Personally I think it works fine to have 1 niche class that is specifically designed as a hybrid between Priest (minor reliance on 1 attribute) and Mage (major reliance on 3 attributes) to have a balance of attribute reliance that is a major reliance on 1 attribute.

I would not describe the mage as having major reliance - the mage has minor reliance x3. You could dump any one, or even any 2 off those stats and get along fine. The conceren is that putting 2 off those functions on the same stat would make that stat excessively appealing. I think if there was a spellcasting trick for mages that let you use your wisdom modifer in place of your Intelligence modifer, that would be a very desirable trick for some casters. The main thing keeping it in check would be that it was locking you out of any other trick. Press on as you like, just know that with one stat governing two aspects of spellcasting, its going to require the rest of the class to come under close scrutiny because it is a way in which they are better spellcasters than mages or priests. That's not insta-fail or anything. It'll just have to be watched.

[Khaalis]

So, to seek expert opinion, I take us back to the originally posted question...

What would be most recommended? Make Invocations...

a) Cast as a Divine spell (see FC p110) but still call them Sorcery, not Miracles. This would be basically making each spell they gain a ‘Natural Spell’. This requires a re-write of Eldritch Blast to be some form of extraordinary attack.

OR

b) Make Invoking a WIS based skill check, and retain CHA for the potency (DC) of spells.

OR

c) Simply granting the Spellcasting (INT) skill as it is instead of Invoking.

[Catodon]

B) Wisdom for insight, Charisma for force of personality.

[Khaalis]

Revision 2 - revised

[Khaalis]

To answer a question from earlier, I'm not currently thinking of adding this to the DB, as I have received some rather negative feedback on the concept and the execution of the concept. It appears to be an unnecessary class and that I did a poor job of creating anything interesting, so no I don't feel it is DB worthy. Thanks though to all who helped try to bang it out.

[Krensky]

The only feedback I gave you on this was not to use a Skill, ie Resolve, because the class would inordinately benefit from the Skill feat tree.

Basically the same reasons Spellcasting isn't a Skill.

[Morgenstern]

Looked promising to me .

Once the pacts were reorganized so I could compare option A to option B within the class, it seemed to be pretty workable. There might be some simplification that can still be applied (I liked the idea of the blast being written more directly as an ability rather than a spell) but I don't see anything wrong with the premise.

Spells are alibrary off effects. There's nothign sacred about that library only being accessed via the existing Spellcasting skill or Priestly paths. Alternate magic systems have value and sometimes those alternate systems manifest as a class. Mages, and even the Spellbound specialists, have tremendous bredth of choice in their spell selections. Sharply curtailing that array and flexibility is the start of a trade-off that leaves some wigle room on other fronts.

[Krensky]

Ack.

I see what happened. Typoed a word out.

It should have read:

[Your] Warlock had some interesting concepts and actually tried (and I'm not trying to imply there that it failed) to do something interesting.

[Khaalis]

@ Krensky. Yeah that typo makes a HUGE difference in what you said. Thanks for clarifying that.  However, you did still state that you felt it was the wrong way to go.  /shrug

It's most certainly not how I would have done it, but you dismissed my thoughts on the concept when someone else linked to them with out even apparently reading them. To me, Eldritch Blast is a feat chain and other then that it's a Specialty (which was linked to) that chain and some fluff and roleplaying rather then writing a whole new type of magic user.

[Khaalis]

Looked promising to me .

Once the pacts were reorganized so I could compare option A to option B within the class, it seemed to be pretty workable. There might be some simplification that can still be applied (I liked the idea of the blast being written more directly as an ability rather than a spell) but I don't see anything wrong with the premise.

Any suggestions? I had toyed with making EB act like an extraordinary attack, but wasn't sure how well that meshed since its more for NPCs than PCs. What else do you think needs to be simplified?

Spells are alibrary off effects. There's nothign sacred about that library only being accessed via the existing Spellcasting skill or Priestly paths. Alternate magic systems have value and sometimes those alternate systems manifest as a class. Mages, and even the Spellbound specialists, have tremendous bredth of choice in their spell selections. Sharply curtailing that array and flexibility is the start of a trade-off that leaves some wigle room on other fronts.

Is the existing "Invoking" workable, or do you think something completely different should be developed?

[Krensky]

@ Krensky. Yeah that typo makes a HUGE difference in what you said. Thanks for clarifying that.  However, you did still state that you felt it was the wrong way to go.  /shrug

It's most certainly not how I would have done it, but you dismissed my thoughts on the concept when someone else linked to them with out even apparently reading them. To me, Eldritch Blast is a feat chain and other then that it's a Specialty (which was linked to) that chain and some fluff and roleplaying rather then writing a whole new type of magic user.

There is a very large difference between "How I would do it." and "You're doing it wrong."

Part of it probably also relates to how I see the D&D Warlock (a blaster with a trick or two) versus how you seem to see it (an alternate caster).

[Khaalis]

Part of it probably also relates to how I see the D&D Warlock (a blaster with a trick or two) versus how you seem to see it (an alternate caster).

That's not quite accurate. I don't see the original warlock as an alternate caster. You are correct - they were a blaster with some tricks. However, I also stated I was looking at the latest version from 4E as well, because the core concept of the warlock changed over time. I also was mixing in some of the concepts of the Bloodline Sorcerer concept, which is basically where the 4E pacts for the warlock came from. While the warlock remained a blaster in 4E, it was also a true caster and the pacts became more important. So for me, the exercise here was to port over these general concepts and Craftify them to an example of a usable "hybrid" style caster base class.

Could it be done as an Expert Class, yeah probably. Could it be done as a Specialty and feats. Yeah, probably that too. However, I wanted to go with a more in depth set of abilities that directly linked the warlock and their pact.

I hope that makes sense.