Warlocks in Birthright

[Sinister]

Sometimes players come to the table with character concepts that just don't make sense in BR or in some part of the setting where you are starting things off. I agree that sometimes its better to allow a player to play what they want than to insist on their playing what you want. Usually some compromise in backstory, or class powers is possible.

3x has marketing influencing rules. One of those rules is "hey here's 50 classes and races, pick whatever you want" as a scheme to get you to buy more class books. People tend to sit around thinking up character ideas long before a game presents itself. As a result they "force" the character to fit the story.

Several years ago was the best example of this. Right when 3.0 launched I had a friend of a friend that begged to play birthright, and just wouldn't take no for an answer about playing a monk. Finally I got sick of arguing and let the players vote, they didn't like the idea but allowed it just to get the game started. By the end of the first session the character was soooo out of place everyone wanted him dead.

I feel that I may be alone in my view of this in the 3X world but I believe if you are faithful to the vision of the DM you will forge a story that both you and the DM can be very very happy with with that in mind:

Listen to what his setting is about before making a character. Sure the game is about players having fun, but it's also about showing a DM's vision respect. You can't do that by having a character made without at least considering the story. If that cool character you made up 3 months ago won't fit, don't force it, there will be another D&D game eventually.

Lots of people won't even give my Birthright games a chance because I don't allow every class and race (it's very restrictive even for birthright) but I keep asking myself did I really want the player insisting on playing a dragon in my game anyway?

[irdeggman]

Another way is to have the player write up a background history of the PC explaining why he is what he is, where (or how) he acquired his "training", what his past was about and a fore shadow of his goals. Recognizing of course that all "goals" change.

By enforcing the history the player gets the idea of what the "setting"/"game" is all about and instead of trying to write up a "really powerful" character he is more likely to go for story quality.

Especially if you award xp for the character history.

[Sinister]

Another way is to have the player write up a background history of the PC explaining why he is what he is, where (or how) he acquired his "training", what his past was about and a fore shadow of his goals. Recognizing of course that all "goals" change.

By enforcing the history the player gets the idea of what the "setting"/"game" is all about and instead of trying to write up a "really powerful" character he is more likely to go for story quality.

Especially if you award xp for the character history.

This is an EXCELLENT idea I have used before and am using now.

[kgauck]

Lots of people won't even give my Birthright games a chance because I don't allow every class and race

As DM's we'd all love to have enough players that we could select the one's who we most wanted, either because they were excellent players or because they made our job easier. But since many of us are not in that position sometimes it comes down to working with the players or not having any players.

[Jarod_Lindfaller]

Actually, I happen to play a Warlock in a Birthright setting.

The class has a number of interesting '24-hour' invocations that do well in a social setting, such as the one that boosts your bluff and diplomacy a bit.

The way we worked around some of the game mechanics is:
-We allowed the Warlock to create and hold Source holdings. After all, no matter the source, there is raw magic running through his blood, he can use this to attune to the land with.
-We allowed the warlock to create Ley-lines, too.

-Realm spells are a little more different... Those are treated as the only spells the Warlock can 'learn', meaning he has to find or get a teacher to sell him a particular Realm spell that he wishes to know, or spend two or three times as much time and resources researching it like a regular mage would research it.

The ~major~ issue that one needs to think about with warlocks in a campaign setting like Birthright is their lvl 12 class ability.
As soon as they hit that level they can basically make any kind of magic item just by 'faking the motions' and drop a whole lot of magical stuff into your campaign.
If you're ok with that, go for it.
What would be useful to curb a warlocks magic-item-creating enthousiasm is to create an exchange-rate for Regency-to-XP for crafting items only. Set or variable per level if you wish, but it would force the player to choose to either use his Regency to boost their Blood Score, to keep it on hand for Regency battles, or to make magic items with.
They'll have to choose one over the other since regency doesn't grow on trees.

It all hinges on whether or not the warlock and the DM are responsible about it.

[Sinister]

Actually, I happen to play a Warlock in a Birthright setting.

The class has a number of interesting '24-hour' invocations that do well in a social setting, such as the one that boosts your bluff and diplomacy a bit.

The way we worked around some of the game mechanics is:
-We allowed the Warlock to create and hold Source holdings. After all, no matter the source, there is raw magic running through his blood, he can use this to attune to the land with.
-We allowed the warlock to create Ley-lines, too.

-Realm spells are a little more different... Those are treated as the only spells the Warlock can 'learn', meaning he has to find or get a teacher to sell him a particular Realm spell that he wishes to know, or spend two or three times as much time and resources researching it like a regular mage would research it.

The ~major~ issue that one needs to think about with warlocks in a campaign setting like Birthright is their lvl 12 class ability.
As soon as they hit that level they can basically make any kind of magic item just by 'faking the motions' and drop a whole lot of magical stuff into your campaign.
If you're ok with that, go for it.
What would be useful to curb a warlocks magic-item-creating enthousiasm is to create an exchange-rate for Regency-to-XP for crafting items only. Set or variable per level if you wish, but it would force the player to choose to either use his Regency to boost their Blood Score, to keep it on hand for Regency battles, or to make magic items with.
They'll have to choose one over the other since regency doesn't grow on trees.

It all hinges on whether or not the warlock and the DM are responsible about it.

I think it boils down to if your DM and players are ok with it. I would not be ok with it as it's another example of 3.5 impacting the setting (warlocks casting realm spells would bug the crap out of me) but if you guys are having fun with it then that's the most important thing.

[irdeggman]

I think it boils down to if your DM and players are ok with it. I would not be ok with it as it's another example of 3.5 impacting the setting (warlocks casting realm spells would bug the crap out of me) but if you guys are having fun with it then that's the most important thing.

Ditto on all counts - if it works for your group go with it.

CA specificaly states that warlocks are not spell casters. That is they no not meet spellcasting level requirements.

"A warlock cannot qualify for prestige classes with spellcasting level requirements, as he never actualy learns to cast spells."

This comes into play when looking at prestige classes and feat prerequisities too.