>POV. >you are about to hear the worst dnd opinion

>I just wanted to see if anybody would believe the existence of Twitter drama without asking for proofs
just because I take you at your word over something extremely reasonable (leftist on twitter not voting for trump) doesn't mean I will go around repeating it as if it is a fact. it's the equivalent of me telling someone I got a dog and then acting smug that they didn't ask for a pic with a timestamp to prove it.
you claiming there was some drama over it wasn't something I believed either, for all I knew you could be exagerating or making up a schizo story in your head to why people dislike the dude you enjoy.

It sounds like you like the character-building minigame, and honestly I'm with you, but I can understand how a lot of people don't.
Feats are just badly balanced, I would enjoy and appreciate the feat/ability tradeoff if it were more of an even trade-off.
FIrstly, it's good that feats are more powerful than in 3e, a lot of 3e feats were literally just conditoinal +1. As in, "+1 all the time is too powerful, you only get it sometimes". So you end up with a pile of tiny conditional modifiers on your mid-level character and it sucks, it's too much bookkeeping for too little payoff.
The other great thing is collapsable complexity. People who want a simple character can just crank their ability scores, people who want a complex character can take a lot of feats, this is excellent. You should embrace collapsible complexity whenever possible because it lets players make characters who are as complicated as they want them to be.

>trying to 'sanitize' nechronica
The gore and e-girls are excellent for gatekeeping purposes, real Nechrohomies understand this.

To be fair DSP is a caveman who can't win at video games and all his "fans" are just people who think he's a noskills moron. Spoony had an actual fan base and he treated them like shit

>doubling down
And that's even worse

if you really wanted to, and if you don't have anyone to play with you, you could run a mock example of play for yourself. make some characters, make a dungeon (or whatever) and run the characters through it, etc.

this is normally what i do when learning a new system i'm excited about.

yeah, pretty much this.

>I think this only serves to diminish the idea that other classes can pull similar stuff
I don't think that's contradictory with warlocks having good roleplay potential. In fact, it's the reason. Other classes don't get to have that backstory so warlocks are more special for it.

The thing is; what a magic users can do is inherently arbitrary. So if there's gonna be a distinction between classes it HAS to involve lore.
If you want complete freedom to build your character, you need a point buy system.

it is contradictory though, because they actually don't. there's no reason you shouldn't be able to apply the pretty much exact same backstory to a wizard, for instance, except warlocks have no other choice. also now some DMs might have a reason to why your wizard actually CAN'T get magic from a patron, because "they would have to be a warlock instead". it's all bullshit, really.

>The thing is; what a magic users can do is inherently arbitrary. So if there's gonna be a distinction between classes it HAS to involve lore.
the problem isn't that involves lore, you're not seeing me complain about druids or clerics, the main reason being that you're not being told you HAVE to follow a very specific backstory for them to be what they are. either your themes and mechanics are strong enough to stand on their own without stealing too much from other classes, or they aren't.

>The difference is that the warlock gets assigned with a plothook
that's exactly the problem. you could make an argument against clerics and sorcerers if you wanted, but at least they're not forcing a very specific backstory on you. clerics in particular are in no way as vague as warlocks are, their themes and mechanics are strong enough to stand on their own even if your wizard DID got their magic from a god. as for sorcerers, the innate vs learned magic dichotomy is a good enough excuse if you wanted to include a mechanically different magic user class. even if both had gotten their powers from fiend pacts, the distinction of how it was given is easy to be made. maybe if sorcerers WEREN'T a thing than maybe warlocks would be able to stand on their own as casters imbued with magic, but even then they'd still be more limited than sorcerers in terms of backstory.
tl;dr: warlocks have nothing unique to offer and have to basically adopt a backstory to justify their own existence, while also hijacking it from others.
nobody is saying the choices aren't all some level of arbitrary, but there's ZERO justification for warlocks even being a thing.

and my original post was about how that's bullshit. warlocks are "the more interesting choice" in a similar way using a premade character is also "more interesting" if you don't wanna bother thinking of a backstory for your character. neither is an unique opportunity exclusive to that class, you're just pretending that it is.

and my original post was about how that's bullshit. warlocks are "the more interesting choice" in a similar way using a premade character is also "more interesting" if you don't wanna bother thinking of a backstory for your character. neither is an unique opportunity exclusive to that class, you're just pretending that it is.

We pretend a lot of things in this game. A wizard with a pact is a narrative houserule. Per the rules, warlocks depend on patrons for their power, and wizards don't.

The warlock was supposed to be more of a comicbook wizard with weaker magic powers that could be used at-will. It's supposed to be a magical guy without the bookkeeping. I understand what happened to it in 4e, everyone in 4e has at-will powers and the warlock makes sense as a striker, but I never really got my head around what the warlock is supposed to be doing in 5e.

>actual brainlet take.
No, he's completely right, and I think it's going over your head.
>considering there are no actual rules on how to run the actual patron itself.
This is the crux of the issue, we're playing a roleplaying game, something can have no rules and still matter. It may make you feel better to think of it as a rule interpreted by the DM.

The DM can also say that wizards have patrons, or that warlocks get their powers from homeopathic medicine, but in this sense the "warlocks have patrons" rule is the same as any other rule. Any rule can be changed by the DM, but some rules make sense in a white room with no players and no DMs, the "warlocks have patrons" rule is a rule that only makes sense in the context of the conversation between player and gamemaster. "Prompt" is a good term for it.

>feel free to explain
The whole idea behind a roleplaying game is setting rules and limitations to your game of make belief to make it more rewarding.
You're using ideas by other people to excite and inspire you.
Adventure modules that include characters, locations, and worldbuilding tidbits are consistenly enjoyed better than ones without them.

Warlocks in DnD get a writing prompt to stimulate the player's imagination. Make them think on how to incorporate it into a story. They could have come up with a backstory without a prompt, but a little challenge gets the creativity going more than a blank canvas.
The concept of creative limitation is widely recognized in every creative pursuit.

>me, because they rely on having a patron and nothing else to justify their existence as a class
the same why a cleric relies on gods to justify their class, sorcerers on magical bloodlines/being infused with magic and wizards with being able to learn magic through study

>also needs to take the narrative possibility away from other classes to do it.
how ?

>none would suffer as bad as the warlock
you fail to show any real difference

>except it doesn't, it relies on CLERGY the most
no, it relies in gods empowering specific followers

> they could literally remove the god requirement
no because the god is the source of it's powers

> would still have a strong theming,
no different than the warlock

> like they did with paladins
no

>hell, isn't this an official optional rule in some 5e rulebook? if so, this alone would entirely destroy your point.
the same could be easily done with warlocks as the rule one says that you can call the divine power source by other name

>that's how you argue against warlocks AND sorcerers.
no because that not even an argument you moron

> we already have wizards AND sorcerers
and ?

>so if you wanna include yet another wizard, you better have a real good justification
different mechanics in game and different source of power
if anything warlock are more akin to clerics than wizards

> trying to pull other classes down with it.
only applying your logic to other classes schizo-chan

> I'm talking specifically in the case a DM might decide not to allow pacts outside of taking warlock levels
that's was not specify and not a problem of the class, at most a problem of your DM

> I made that clear enough
no, you didn't

>I think they're onto something with the "one top-tier spell per rest" combined with low-key magic superpowers
>I think there could be a point where warlock makes sense as a rogue-like scoundrel figure who also has cream-skimming magic-for-dummies and who thus makes the real spellcasters look more devoted by comparison.
that's a very reasonable point, I appreciate that. and I can agree with that, I think it needs a rework but it could really work as something like a regular guy who picked up an evil magic book and goes to town.

>Magical pacts should just be part of the gameworld, as a kind of optional reward, and they should have low/mid-powered benefits, combined with annoying RP drawbacks.
pretty much this, you hit the nail on the head. maybe if warlocks were drawing their powers from a specific source instead of "dude just do whatever as long as its a pact" it could work better, because then nobody would feel compelled to assume that's just how "pacts" work in the setting. like imagine if they were in a symbiotic relationship with the shadowfell or whatever, more of a "venom" type character than just an edgy shadow sorcerer, which I think it's a thing already.

>defending it as "well it's just a prompt so it's a good thing!" is extremely dishonest and shortsighted.
But can you read?

The original claim was that warlocks are the more interesting choice, not that the game was more interesting for having warlocks in it.

>I think this only serves to diminish the idea that other classes can pull similar stuff
I don't think that's contradictory with warlocks having good roleplay potential. In fact, it's the reason. Other classes don't get to have that backstory so warlocks are more special for it.

The thing is; what a magic users can do is inherently arbitrary. So if there's gonna be a distinction between classes it HAS to involve lore.
If you want complete freedom to build your character, you need a point buy system.

Nobody is saying defending the warlock as game design choice.
It's not that restricting patrons to warlocks makes the game more interesting. The statement was always that, given the fact that patrons are restricted to warlocks, the warlock is more interesting to take than the wizard.

This whole conversation is like if I had said
>The druid is so powerful, it's the best nature class
and you came back with
>It's not the best at all, it's lame because it makes the ranger less viable
Well duh. Those aren't contradictions at all.

when it comes down to it I just think the warlock lacks substance. even if this isn't posing a limitation on other classes (i.e. not allowed to make contracts without taking a warlock level), they're still exclusively relying on that backstory to even be a thing, like no other class does. they have nothing else besides that fact. even a cleric isn't just defined by having a divine powersource, they have limited freedoms which actually enhance the class' identity. a warlock is equivalent to making a "hammer guy" class alongside the fighter, except some DMs also think picking up a hammer means you have to pick a level on that class.

NTA, though I'd say it's less that Warlocks get that, and more that it's simply baked in automatically.
Nothing technically stops a player from having their Fighter be sworn to the service of a king or a powerful dragon or any other entity with a lot of magical or political sway. It's just that such a backstory would need to be an active choice on the player's part.
By comparison, Warlock simply pushes it right in the player's face that they can shake hands with a powerful magical creature, so it's more obvious for players to lean on.

You could absolutely just make having a patron into a background option alongside Noble or anything else. It's just that the benefits would need to be greatly diminished or come with a tradeoff, or have it otherwise be on the player to say that their Wizard learned their magic more easily with the help of a demon, or that their Fighter was weak and sickly before a Fey took pity on them and made them as strong as an ox.

That's close to what 4e did with Themes.

It's not a misconception.

>This is another widespread misconception, you're pretending like most games have a carefully-considered and carefully-engineered system intended to best reflect the genre that it depicts.
And your pretending I'm talking about minor tweaking of rules to fit one groups tastes or creating custom campaigns. I'm specifically talking about taking something like frostgrave. A game skirmish miniature wargame that runs off a single d20 with no GM, that revolves around wizards throwing spells at eachother and trying to collect treasure. Taking this system and trying to twist and contort it to make it martial combat centric, DM run, and campaign heavy centric TTrpg.
>nothing matters more. You are a buffoon.
Name-calling is a sign of insecurity anon.

I completely disagree.

Also, and I don't expect you to swallow this, but adding a DM to a DM-less game is an extremely minor tweak. It's way easier than, say, switching between an injury system and a hitpoint system. You aren't going to accept that because you're assigning too much value to the designer's intent. It's like taking someone else's biscuit recipe and using it to make dumplings, except that the food/cooking analogy has always been misleading, because a good game is way, way, way more subjective than good food.

>It's a minor tweak.
Not really, considering there's zero rules for it in frostgrave since it's a player Vs player game.
>your assigning too much value to the designers intent.
Lol what? I'm simply saying it would be easier and better to go back to playing 5E or another ttrpg than trying to contort a skirmish wargame into a ttrpg.
>food analogy.
K.

>You're just not very clever are you?
No need to get defensive anon. I simply disagree with you.
>In this case you are obviously wrong.
How so? There are systems that do what he wants to do simpler, smoother and objectively better than what he is trying to do. Just because he is homebrewing dosen't automatically mean what he is doing is good.
>Where do you think TTRPGs came from?
Yes and? ttrpgs started out as skirmish wargames with new rules added to them because no system previously existed for that type if gameplay. The difference being today there are lots of games to fill every niche.

>umm your wrong x3
Okay. I disagree x3.

>umm your not smart.
Insults like this are a sign of insecurity anon. We had a discussion, we disagree and neither of us convinced the other. Leave it at that.

Also, and I don't expect you to swallow this, but adding a DM to a DM-less game is an extremely minor tweak. It's way easier than, say, switching between an injury system and a hitpoint system. You aren't going to accept that because you're assigning too much value to the designer's intent. It's like taking someone else's biscuit recipe and using it to make dumplings, except that the food/cooking analogy has always been misleading, because a good game is way, way, way more subjective than good food.

Where?