It's not that anyone has anything against rituals, but if they vanished, I'm not sure anyone would care and there's the off chance they'll be a victim of rebalancing.
Ritual casting is something normally learned at level 1. So, the complete lack of a 1st level ritual magic feat (along with the fact that I'm fairly sure that no ritual spells outside the 5e core were printed) leaves me a bit open to the possibility it's gone.
It's not that anyone has anything against rituals, but if they vanished, I'm not sure anyone would care and there's the off chance they'll be a victim of rebalancing.
Ritual casting is something normally learned at level 1. So, the complete lack of a 1st level ritual magic feat (along with the fact that I'm fairly sure that no ritual spells outside the 5e core were printed) leaves me a bit open to the possibility it's gone.
Honestly, the only time I usually use rituals is once per game for find familiar (because familiars gets too many party feels for some DMs to kill off) and Detect Magic, I think once a druid used it for water breathing... so yeah, rituals won't be the biggest issue other than detect magic.
Oh god. You just had to poke my sore spot. Warlocks right now are a class made of patches and crutches, they're a mess. I really like R3sistance's original idea of fusing things like agonizing blast, book of rituals, extra attack and soul drinker into corresponding pacts. An elegant and obvious solution. I had a more radical idea in mind, though.
Subclasses and pact boons could switch places. At level 1, you choose a patron, which only gives you expanded spell list and perhaps access to some thematic invocations. At level 3, your communication with patron reaches the point of striking a pact (much like a paladin takes his oath at level 3). Subclass is your terms of service, your role in the arrangement. Hexblade is an enforcer, a knight for a patron, with all the melee functionality features. Occultist specializes in rituals, exotic languages, communicating with other planes. Summoner gets a familiar and gets to use otherworldly meat shileds, forging agreements with demons or acting as patron's lieutenant, commanding the foot soldiers. Witch(er) specializes in curses and social skills to manipulate threads of fate, forging their own pacts with other mortals. There could also be roles of collector, procuring artifacts for the patron and gaining limited access to the patron's vault in exchange, or host, being a vessel for patron himself. As is, you could just remix the existing features to make it work.
Also, a warlock just needs more stuff to do other than spam eldritch blast after burning all of your two spell slots. [PB] slots per long rest, restoring one slot with monsters' recharge mechanic? Though I'm not a fan of randomness in base mechanics of a class...
So as I read that, basically pact becomes the real subclass and patron is just spell selection and maybe an extra invocation or two; with all major features going towards the pacts. I could get behind that.
So as I read that, basically pact becomes the real subclass and patron is just spell selection and maybe an extra invocation or two; with all major features going towards the pacts. I could get behind that.
Yeah, exactly. A subclass has to have a direction, tend towards a certain role. If a subclass - and a role - are defined by patron or deity, it's as if that patron or deity is limited to only needing or favoring one role. The same patron might need a martial enforcer of his will (a hexblade), a mediator between his folk and material world (summoner), an agent of influence (witch), or a student and researcher to collect information (occultist).
I want the same for clerics. Instead of countless domains, let the selection of deity add spells and maybe a channel divinity option, while your cleric subclass would have a clear role in the church - chaplain marching with the troops to defend the faith (or crusade against infidels), a preacher spreading the word to the masses (or prying confessions from heretics' mouths), an augur speaking to the deity's divine messengers and reading omens, or a healer tending to the flock. The same god might need all of these roles in his church. Also that's gonna fit way better into monotheistic settings.
The way I see it, there are two aspects to making a pact. Its what you make a pact with (fiend, fey, monstrocity, undead, celestial, abomination)* and how you make the pact (sentient weapon/item**, signed contract, possession, etc). The first part is your Patron. The second is your pact boon.
Patron subclasses in 5e seem to have some prejudice towards what kind of pact form they supported. Its painfully clear that talisman is meant to work with genie, hexblade with blade pact, and fathomless has a whole summoning thing going on. Even the original three had biases - inferno tended towards abilities suited for melee, fey abiliites lended themsleves to a more wizard-like actor, and GOO themed abilities worked best with chain. Not that the classes didn't work well enough if you ignored the bias, but there's definitely some underlying synergy intended.
Is that kind of patron - boon bias desirable going forwards into 1d&d? Maybe, maybe not. I can see benefits and flaws either way. But its something to keep in mind. Personally, I would prefer at least some ability to play the summoner, the blade or the book in each Patron. Or even a jack. It always was amusing to make a book'lock that could mimic the other two pact boons to a limited extent using the right cantrips.
* 3e established infernal and fey as the primary pact types. 4e added undead/gloom/vestige and star/GOO/fathomless. Most other pacts, including celestial and genie, seem to be acting as variations on these four main themes.
** I feel like talismans are just the armor-like relic to blade's offensive artifact. Two sides of the same coin. Maybe the two will be merged going forwards, or maybe they'll end up as different boons. Either way, we can take inspiration for how talisman works for redesigning blade.
So as I read that, basically pact becomes the real subclass and patron is just spell selection and maybe an extra invocation or two; with all major features going towards the pacts. I could get behind that.
Yeah, exactly. A subclass has to have a direction, tend towards a certain role. If a subclass - and a role - are defined by patron or deity, it's as if that patron or deity is limited to only needing or favoring one role. The same patron might need a martial enforcer of his will (a hexblade), a mediator between his folk and material world (summoner), an agent of influence (witch), or a student and researcher to collect information (occultist).
I want the same for clerics. Instead of countless domains, let the selection of deity add spells and maybe a channel divinity option, while your cleric subclass would have a clear role in the church - chaplain marching with the troops to defend the faith (or crusade against infidels), a preacher spreading the word to the masses (or prying confessions from heretics' mouths), an augur speaking to the deity's divine messengers and reading omens, or a healer tending to the flock. The same god might need all of these roles in his church. Also that's gonna fit way better into monotheistic settings.
Pardon the expression, but hell no.
Do you have any idea how many deities are in the Forgotten Realms? Hell, how about Wildemount? There are currently 14 domains. Exandria has 21 deities. So you're looking at expanding the number of subclasses by 50% while also pigeonholing players into their characters needing to belong to a church. Sorry, not just needing to belong to a church. Needing to fill a specific role that every church has. So every church would have chaplains marching people to war.
It's simultaneously both bloated and homogenized, and I can't even begin to fathom how your thought process got you here.
There's also this thing where polytheistic faiths in ancient times often didn't really have crusades in the name of a deity against infidels. It was actually fairly common for different religions to exchange ideas and syncretize.
Also different deities would require different roles. A war god might not have any use for a "healer of the flock", and a god of the sea might not have any use for preachers since anyone who lives or works by the sea probably would worship or pray to that god anyway, just to ensure their safety or to increase their catch of the day.
EDIT: My hot take of the day is that divine magic never should have been treated the way it is. In the real world and in many myths, anyone can pray to a deity to have miracles happen; in myths at least, the deity isn't restricted to answering only their priests and their priests aren't always able to get the deity to do things for them (hence, stories of priests feeling like their gods have abandoned them). Probably the closest thing I've seen to how I imagine divine magic should actually work is Divine Intervention.
Do you have any idea how many deities are in the Forgotten Realms? Hell, how about Wildemount? There are currently 14 domains. Exandria has 21 deities. So you're looking at expanding the number of subclasses by 50% while also pigeonholing players into their characters needing to belong to a church. Sorry, not just needing to belong to a church. Needing to fill a specific role that every church has. So every church would have chaplains marching people to war.
It's simultaneously both bloated and homogenized, and I can't even begin to fathom how your thought process got you here.
That's because you've misunderstood me. I want less subclasses (but with choices within them like hunter or totemic warrior), so that they're not based on countless deities (which can be bred ad infinitum), but on roles. It's not who you serve, but how you serve, your talents and inclinations, and your deity's mission for you. Where's homogenization in clear distribution of roles? A chaplain is trained to be at the frontlines, a preacher/confessor specializes on social interactions, an augur is more versed in mystical, magical aspects of divine.
Also, a cleric that doesn't belong to any church is either a heretic, or a leader of his own sect. To learn about a deity and believe, you have to be in close contact with a religious organization or its followers, and even if you are a prodigy who's been contacted by god personally and can't keep silent about it, you're either taken in or stamped out, it's just how things naturally work.
There's also this thing where polytheistic faiths in ancient times often didn't really have crusades in the name of a deity against infidels. It was actually fairly common for different religions to exchange ideas and syncretize.
Also different deities would require different roles. A war god might not have any use for a "healer of the flock", and a god of the sea might not have any use for preachers since anyone who lives or works by the sea probably would worship or pray to that god anyway, just to ensure their safety or to increase their catch of the day.
EDIT: My hot take of the day is that divine magic never should have been treated the way it is. In the real world and in many myths, anyone can pray to a deity to have miracles happen; in myths at least, the deity isn't restricted to answering only their priests and their priests aren't always able to get the deity to do things for them (hence, stories of priests feeling like their gods have abandoned them). Probably the closest thing I've seen to how I imagine divine magic should actually work is Divine Intervention.
Well, you're right about polytheistic faiths, although I always found it weird that default fantasy settings usually merge medieval europe (when even different confessions of the same faith waged war against each other) with ancient polytheism.
Yes, different single-aspect deities might require single roles, but it's not a versatile approach. Even a sea god that has no need for a church, still could use an augur to read portents in the skies and waves, and make weather forecasts, a preacher to perform rites for community (remember the priest of the Drowned God from GoT), and in case there's more than one god of the same thing or their interests clash (like Talos and Umberlee), they might use a chaplain...
If divine magic was inherently unreliable and random, no one would bother with it. Myths about fickle deities blessing strangers and abandoning their own priests make sense only in isolation, as myths. Such deity would lose believers and wither in a world with consequences. I find it amusing how faith works in China, I like their mindset in this regard. The very same temple may have shrines of Confucius, Buddha, some local pagan deity or spirit, and Karl Marx. Chinese pray to whatever entity they think works. And if prayers don't work, they punish the deity by desecrating their symbols, and over time they may discard the "useless" god altogether. In a way, this reminds me of yuan-ti that can devour their own gods.
Do you have any idea how many deities are in the Forgotten Realms? Hell, how about Wildemount? There are currently 14 domains. Exandria has 21 deities. So you're looking at expanding the number of subclasses by 50% while also pigeonholing players into their characters needing to belong to a church. Sorry, not just needing to belong to a church. Needing to fill a specific role that every church has. So every church would have chaplains marching people to war.
It's simultaneously both bloated and homogenized, and I can't even begin to fathom how your thought process got you here.
That's because you've misunderstood me. I want less subclasses (but with choices within them like hunter or totemic warrior), so that they're not based on countless deities (which can be bred ad infinitum), but on roles. It's not who you serve, but how you serve, your talents and inclinations, and your deity's mission for you. Where's homogenization in clear distribution of roles? A chaplain is trained to be at the frontlines, a preacher/confessor specializes on social interactions, an augur is more versed in mystical, magical aspects of divine.
Also, a cleric that doesn't belong to any church is either a heretic, or a leader of his own sect. To learn about a deity and believe, you have to be in close contact with a religious organization or its followers, and even if you are a prodigy who's been contacted by god personally and can't keep silent about it, you're either taken in or stamped out, it's just how things naturally work.
Okay, see, this is where we're disconnecting. I'm not misunderstanding you. Your proposal is still nuttier than a fruitcake. Because what you want is to completely upend how things currently work. And that's just not going to happen. To call it a pipe dream isn't even fair to actual pipe dreams.
First off, the current domains already highlight how you serve. Each deity covers different aspects of life. Those domains are additional powers granted by one's connection to a deity in relation to both the deity's role in the larger world and the cleric's mission, so to speak.
Second, you're advocating for every deity to have similarly, if not identically, structured organizations under them. And you're demanding that a particular class must be part of such organizations. All for the sake of "how things naturally work." But that's not how things work, and your...solution is in search of a problem which doesn't exist. If you want your personal, homebrewed settings to work that way, you can do that. But a generic set of rules doesn't need all of that baggage. Because then you have to define those organizations. You have to define each deity in a way that would just add unnecessary bloat to each and every book published.
You're projecting baggage which doesn't need to be added on.
If divine magic was inherently unreliable and random, no one would bother with it. Myths about fickle deities blessing strangers and abandoning their own priests make sense only in isolation, as myths. Such deity would lose believers and wither in a world with consequences. I find it amusing how faith works in China, I like their mindset in this regard. The very same temple may have shrines of Confucius, Buddha, some local pagan deity or spirit, and Karl Marx. Chinese pray to whatever entity they think works. And if prayers don't work, they punish the deity by desecrating their symbols, and over time they may discard the "useless" god altogether. In a way, this reminds me of yuan-ti that can devour their own gods.
I called it a hot take for a reason. But I'm not suggesting that divine magic would be precisely like Divine Intervention where you're always rolling a d100, nor am I suggesting that classes be built around something that requires a roll of the dice to do anything. I'm suggesting that divine magic probably shouldn't have been a thing that had entire classes centered around it in the first place, and it would be a thing that anyone can potentially tap into, but you'd need to take certain backgrounds/feats/etc to make somewhat better use of it. Arcane magic is actually reliable because it's basically the "science" of D&D worlds, where people learn (to varying degrees of awareness) how to manipulate the fabric of reality to suit their needs, making it not too dissimilar to how we use physics, chemistry, biology, etc to manipulate our real world to benefit our species technologically.
Also I take some issue with the fact that the Ceremony spell and the Augury spell are even spells to begin with. Anyone with the Acolyte background should be able to do what the ceremony spell does imo without having to expend spell slots, and augury is just something that anyone knowledgeable enough about deities, "mundane" divination methods like reading tea leaves or casting runes, and the kinds of omens they present should be able to do as well. These are both things that should have fallen under the purview of the Religion skill, but almost anything that skill would be useful for otherwise gets relegated to one divine class or another, which is part of why it often goes underused.
As to how it relates to reworking Warlocks, I think Warlocks (if they want to really lean into the flavour of their making pacts with otherworldly patrons) should make it clear that that's what is happening. As it stands, there are no rules for actually making pacts with otherworldly patrons, other than devils in Descent into Avernus and fey in that one supplement to Wild Beyond the Witchlight that you have to download from the DM's Guild iirc. And there are no guidelines for how to handle the connection between the patron and the warlock. Like for example, can the patron actually talk to the warlock or vice-versa, and if so how? What are the limitations of this? Do you have to wait until 9th level when you unlock contact other plane to be able to do so? Also can you entreat the patron to do things beyond what the class itself provides, like sending a minion to help or refreshing your pact slots early, which doesn't officially happen until 20th level?
Okay, see, this is where we're disconnecting. I'm not misunderstanding you. Your proposal is still nuttier than a fruitcake. Because what you want is to completely upend how things currently work. And that's just not going to happen. To call it a pipe dream isn't even fair to actual pipe dreams.
First off, the current domains already highlight how you serve. Each deity covers different aspects of life. Those domains are additional powers granted by one's connection to a deity in relation to both the deity's role in the larger world and the cleric's mission, so to speak.
Second, you're advocating for every deity to have similarly, if not identically, structured organizations under them. And you're demanding that a particular class must be part of such organizations. All for the sake of "how things naturally work." But that's not how things work, and your...solution is in search of a problem which doesn't exist. If you want your personal, homebrewed settings to work that way, you can do that. But a generic set of rules doesn't need all of that baggage. Because then you have to define those organizations. You have to define each deity in a way that would just add unnecessary bloat to each and every book published.
You're projecting baggage which doesn't need to be added on.
Well, I'm not conservative, I like to dream big and try different things. And given how playtest started... Did you expect crits to be taken away from casters, was that going to happen?
First off, what about monotheistic settings? How do you explain a trickery domain cleric in service of Jesus Christ? And there's 14 domains already, each presenting a limited thematic set tied to a limited single-minded god that demands all of its clerics be the same. And 14 domains is just bloated. Then there's redundant features like potent spellcasting and divine strike, or avatar of battle and saint of forge and fire.
All churches need not be the same. I want as many cleric subclasses as there's possible cleric roles. Some cults might have more aspects to their organizations, some might have less. Think of it like this: imagine if rogue or fighter subclasses were not based on roles, but on monolithic organizations that consist of one subclass. If clerics of Torm are all war domain, then Zhentarim rogues are all thieves and no other subclass, no other aspect, and the thief subclass itself is now called Zhentarim. And knights of Solamnia are all exclusively cavaliers. Because that's how cleric subclasses work right now. What I want is to merge existing subclasses into roles (like war, forge, and order merged into chaplain), so that instead of making your first and last subclass choice at level 1 and then losing all other options forever, you'd choose one of several options each time you gain a subclass feature. In other words, I want all subclasses to work like hunter ranger or totemic warrior barbarian, with choices within features, which can be achieved my merging together several subclasses wherever there's bloat. More choices, more variety, more customization. Other approach is subclass having basic features, with the rest being available through features like warlock invocations or artificer infusions. These are classes with the most customization, and I want this kinda model to apply to as many classes as possible.
As to how it relates to reworking Warlocks, I think Warlocks (if they want to really lean into the flavour of their making pacts with otherworldly patrons) should make it clear that that's what is happening. As it stands, there are no rules for actually making pacts with otherworldly patrons, other than devils in Descent into Avernus and fey in that one supplement to Wild Beyond the Witchlight that you have to download from the DM's Guild iirc. And there are no guidelines for how to handle the connection between the patron and the warlock. Like for example, can the patron actually talk to the warlock or vice-versa, and if so how? What are the limitations of this? Do you have to wait until 9th level when you unlock contact other plane to be able to do so? Also can you entreat the patron to do things beyond what the class itself provides, like sending a minion to help or refreshing your pact slots early, which doesn't officially happen until 20th level?
Well, a part of that is explored in XGtE, there were tables with ideas for warlock's relationship with their patron. The rest is up for DM. Codifying that with rules would take away from freedom of choice. A good DM and a good player just know that pact itself is a perfect material for a personal storyline.
And there are no guidelines for how to handle the connection between the patron and the warlock. Like for example, can the patron actually talk to the warlock or vice-versa, and if so how? What are the limitations of this? Do you have to wait until 9th level when you unlock contact other plane to be able to do so? Also can you entreat the patron to do things beyond what the class itself provides, like sending a minion to help or refreshing your pact slots early, which doesn't officially happen until 20th level?
There's no rules because it depends on the Patron in question. For some people, they literally have a magic sword that grants them their powers and they carry said sword with them, and it communicates telepathically, just like all other sentient swords. Tome warlocks can use invocations to talk to anyone that signs their book - perhaps the reverse is true and the patron can use those powers to talk to the warlock as well. Familiars can be points of contact, or be the patron themselves; again borrowing from invocations, warlock can speak through the familiar, so patron probably can as well. A talisman-genie pact might be trapped in the same bottle-shaped talisman the warlock uses.
Farideh, from some D&D novels, had her cambion patron randomly show up and talk with her, before heading back to the hells again to chill. The fey are renowned for their connection to dreams, so one using those to remain in contact isn't a surprise; Dendar, the Nightmare Serpent, should likewise be big into dreams. GOO/fathomless warlocks likely have a telepathic patron, so... contact via telepathy should be the norm?
Generally speaking, patrons are primarily -teachers-, as warlocks are arcane classes and not primal nor divine, and its something that's been part of the warlock for the past threee editions. The patrons teach spells, so that does require interaction at some point. What that interaction is will depend on the individual patrons.
Warlock patrons are still npcs, so you can entreat them just like any other npc. That'll come down to social scenes and trying to convince them to do things.
As for the initial pact? Well, you just need to stumble across someone. Imps, cambioins and succubi are commonly the ones that approach others to tempt them into sin. Hags kidnap people. Kracken have cults. The undead are manifold, and sometimes possesses others, or are trapped in objects. You don't need rules for pacts, because honestly its going to depend on individual relationships. Lots of patrons are unbound by rules like the Lawful devils.
Okay, see, this is where we're disconnecting. I'm not misunderstanding you. Your proposal is still nuttier than a fruitcake. Because what you want is to completely upend how things currently work. And that's just not going to happen. To call it a pipe dream isn't even fair to actual pipe dreams.
First off, the current domains already highlight how you serve. Each deity covers different aspects of life. Those domains are additional powers granted by one's connection to a deity in relation to both the deity's role in the larger world and the cleric's mission, so to speak.
Second, you're advocating for every deity to have similarly, if not identically, structured organizations under them. And you're demanding that a particular class must be part of such organizations. All for the sake of "how things naturally work." But that's not how things work, and your...solution is in search of a problem which doesn't exist. If you want your personal, homebrewed settings to work that way, you can do that. But a generic set of rules doesn't need all of that baggage. Because then you have to define those organizations. You have to define each deity in a way that would just add unnecessary bloat to each and every book published.
You're projecting baggage which doesn't need to be added on.
Well, I'm not conservative, I like to dream big and try different things. And given how playtest started... Did you expect crits to be taken away from casters, was that going to happen?
First off, what about monotheistic settings? How do you explain a trickery domain cleric in service of Jesus Christ? And there's 14 domains already, each presenting a limited thematic set tied to a limited single-minded god that demands all of its clerics be the same. And 14 domains is just bloated. Then there's redundant features like potent spellcasting and divine strike, or avatar of battle and saint of forge and fire.
All churches need not be the same. I want as many cleric subclasses as there's possible cleric roles. Some cults might have more aspects to their organizations, some might have less. Think of it like this: imagine if rogue or fighter subclasses were not based on roles, but on monolithic organizations that consist of one subclass. If clerics of Torm are all war domain, then Zhentarim rogues are all thieves and no other subclass, no other aspect, and the thief subclass itself is now called Zhentarim. And knights of Solamnia are all exclusively cavaliers. Because that's how cleric subclasses work right now. What I want is to merge existing subclasses into roles (like war, forge, and order merged into chaplain), so that instead of making your first and last subclass choice at level 1 and then losing all other options forever, you'd choose one of several options each time you gain a subclass feature. In other words, I want all subclasses to work like hunter ranger or totemic warrior barbarian, with choices within features, which can be achieved my merging together several subclasses wherever there's bloat. More choices, more variety, more customization. Other approach is subclass having basic features, with the rest being available through features like warlock invocations or artificer infusions. These are classes with the most customization, and I want this kinda model to apply to as many classes as possible.
The game, as it currently exists, doesn't care about roles. And if we're to take the coastal wizards at their word, that One D&D is meant to be backwards compatible with 5e, then they still don't care about roles.
If you want to reduce clerics (and that's already off-topic, but I'll bite) down to whatever "roles" you think should be, then every conceivably deity or faith must follow that suit. The intention isn't to gate certain roles to specific traditions, is it?
I already hate this conversation because trying not to use proper language that delineates your ideals with how D&D has always worked is frustrating beyond all get out. Each world works with a pantheon, sometimes multiple pantheons. Even if you want to dip into monotheism with Christianity, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are more religions, faiths, deities in this world than you can shake a stick at. Never mind all the different sects that practice Christianity differently.
Build your world that way, if you must. But don't expect anyone to be on board with such radical change. It honestly sounds like you want to play 4e or PF2e. Go play those.
Subclasses in 5E don't have specific roles (which might partially be related to 4e) but they do seem to have specific themes, when it comes to cleric, the theme is usually related to their primary deity (I say primary as most people are likely to worship several gods with one god more than the rest) but it's not necessary that it has to be (there isn't a specific rule that says it has to be the case). A grave domain cleric is themed around life and death.
Another example of themes in warlock is hexblade, it's easy to confuse it for "weapons" but the true theme of hexblade is Shadowfell, only a single feature of hexblade actually relates to weapons and a couple of the expanded spell list options.
A roles based system might be simpler for understanding one's position in a party but a themes based system lends itself more to customization and role-play. There are arguments for both but 4e that was more (to my understanding, never played it) role based essentially failed (it was not popular) while 5e that is more themes based has succeeded (most played edition of D&D).
One D&D is suppose to be backwards compatible to both systems anyways, so re-doing subclasses makes things a tiny bit more difficult.
Until we see what they are going to do with rests its hard to say what changes they would need. I'm not sure I like the proposed fix as it seems to lock people into a play style fairly early in the game.
I'm going to mostly ignore talisman as I think they should just drop it, personally I'd drop the pacts entirely.
I'd roll enhanced familiars into the class at its default, instead of imp etc, I'd give it a base stat block and it would be themed to your patron and would act as a mouthpiece for the patron. Admittedly I loved the Shi'ar from AlQuadim but for me I think it would be cool if they are who you went to during your long rest to regain spells etc. But that may be a bridge too far for most.
Pact of the blade/tome I'd default that you have some kind of tome from the pact with your patron, it can take many forms etc, and invocations could lean into it like the pact of the tome. Blade I'd just make a invocation that modified your eldritch blast into melee attacks. If I were going to keep talisman I'd make armor of shadows a class feature that is tied to a object and have invocations tied to it replicating talismans effects.
Basically I'd have the core abilities of pacts part of the class for the most part and let invocations flesh it out, fix that terrible invocations and maybe give them another 4 or so over 20 levels.
I'd roll enhanced familiars into the class at its default, instead of imp etc, I'd give it a base stat block and it would be themed to your patron and would act as a mouthpiece for the patron. Admittedly I loved the Shi'ar from AlQuadim but for me I think it would be cool if they are who you went to during your long rest to regain spells etc. But that may be a bridge too far for most.
You reminded me of something else I've been wondering. Will they do something to make the familiar's creature type actually matter? Right now, it's just a flavour thing that almost never comes up except in maybe the familiar's personality, but it would be kinda cool if having a celestial familiar gave you different benefits as opposed to a fey or fiend familiar. Also it would be nice if you had elemental and undead familiars too imo.
And there are no guidelines for how to handle the connection between the patron and the warlock. Like for example, can the patron actually talk to the warlock or vice-versa, and if so how? What are the limitations of this? Do you have to wait until 9th level when you unlock contact other plane to be able to do so? Also can you entreat the patron to do things beyond what the class itself provides, like sending a minion to help or refreshing your pact slots early, which doesn't officially happen until 20th level?
There's no rules because it depends on the Patron in question. For some people, they literally have a magic sword that grants them their powers and they carry said sword with them, and it communicates telepathically, just like all other sentient swords. Tome warlocks can use invocations to talk to anyone that signs their book - perhaps the reverse is true and the patron can use those powers to talk to the warlock as well. Familiars can be points of contact, or be the patron themselves; again borrowing from invocations, warlock can speak through the familiar, so patron probably can as well. A talisman-genie pact might be trapped in the same bottle-shaped talisman the warlock uses.
Farideh, from some D&D novels, had her cambion patron randomly show up and talk with her, before heading back to the hells again to chill. The fey are renowned for their connection to dreams, so one using those to remain in contact isn't a surprise; Dendar, the Nightmare Serpent, should likewise be big into dreams. GOO/fathomless warlocks likely have a telepathic patron, so... contact via telepathy should be the norm?
Generally speaking, patrons are primarily -teachers-, as warlocks are arcane classes and not primal nor divine, and its something that's been part of the warlock for the past threee editions. The patrons teach spells, so that does require interaction at some point. What that interaction is will depend on the individual patrons.
Warlock patrons are still npcs, so you can entreat them just like any other npc. That'll come down to social scenes and trying to convince them to do things.
As for the initial pact? Well, you just need to stumble across someone. Imps, cambioins and succubi are commonly the ones that approach others to tempt them into sin. Hags kidnap people. Kracken have cults. The undead are manifold, and sometimes possesses others, or are trapped in objects. You don't need rules for pacts, because honestly its going to depend on individual relationships. Lots of patrons are unbound by rules like the Lawful devils.
These are fair points. I suppose I was wondering about guidelines because maybe it might help make the DM's job a bit easier when it comes to handling the character's patron, especially for newer DMs who might not be sure how to collaborate with the warlock player on what they can do with their patron outside of strictly class features.
It's not that anyone has anything against rituals, but if they vanished, I'm not sure anyone would care and there's the off chance they'll be a victim of rebalancing.
Ritual casting is something normally learned at level 1. So, the complete lack of a 1st level ritual magic feat (along with the fact that I'm fairly sure that no ritual spells outside the 5e core were printed) leaves me a bit open to the possibility it's gone.
Honestly, the only time I usually use rituals is once per game for find familiar (because familiars gets too many party feels for some DMs to kill off) and Detect Magic, I think once a druid used it for water breathing... so yeah, rituals won't be the biggest issue other than detect magic.
So as I read that, basically pact becomes the real subclass and patron is just spell selection and maybe an extra invocation or two; with all major features going towards the pacts. I could get behind that.
Yeah, exactly. A subclass has to have a direction, tend towards a certain role. If a subclass - and a role - are defined by patron or deity, it's as if that patron or deity is limited to only needing or favoring one role. The same patron might need a martial enforcer of his will (a hexblade), a mediator between his folk and material world (summoner), an agent of influence (witch), or a student and researcher to collect information (occultist).
I want the same for clerics. Instead of countless domains, let the selection of deity add spells and maybe a channel divinity option, while your cleric subclass would have a clear role in the church - chaplain marching with the troops to defend the faith (or crusade against infidels), a preacher spreading the word to the masses (or prying confessions from heretics' mouths), an augur speaking to the deity's divine messengers and reading omens, or a healer tending to the flock. The same god might need all of these roles in his church. Also that's gonna fit way better into monotheistic settings.
The way I see it, there are two aspects to making a pact. Its what you make a pact with (fiend, fey, monstrocity, undead, celestial, abomination)* and how you make the pact (sentient weapon/item**, signed contract, possession, etc). The first part is your Patron. The second is your pact boon.
Patron subclasses in 5e seem to have some prejudice towards what kind of pact form they supported. Its painfully clear that talisman is meant to work with genie, hexblade with blade pact, and fathomless has a whole summoning thing going on. Even the original three had biases - inferno tended towards abilities suited for melee, fey abiliites lended themsleves to a more wizard-like actor, and GOO themed abilities worked best with chain. Not that the classes didn't work well enough if you ignored the bias, but there's definitely some underlying synergy intended.
Is that kind of patron - boon bias desirable going forwards into 1d&d? Maybe, maybe not. I can see benefits and flaws either way. But its something to keep in mind. Personally, I would prefer at least some ability to play the summoner, the blade or the book in each Patron. Or even a jack. It always was amusing to make a book'lock that could mimic the other two pact boons to a limited extent using the right cantrips.
* 3e established infernal and fey as the primary pact types. 4e added undead/gloom/vestige and star/GOO/fathomless. Most other pacts, including celestial and genie, seem to be acting as variations on these four main themes.
** I feel like talismans are just the armor-like relic to blade's offensive artifact. Two sides of the same coin. Maybe the two will be merged going forwards, or maybe they'll end up as different boons. Either way, we can take inspiration for how talisman works for redesigning blade.
Pardon the expression, but hell no.
Do you have any idea how many deities are in the Forgotten Realms? Hell, how about Wildemount? There are currently 14 domains. Exandria has 21 deities. So you're looking at expanding the number of subclasses by 50% while also pigeonholing players into their characters needing to belong to a church. Sorry, not just needing to belong to a church. Needing to fill a specific role that every church has. So every church would have chaplains marching people to war.
It's simultaneously both bloated and homogenized, and I can't even begin to fathom how your thought process got you here.
There's also this thing where polytheistic faiths in ancient times often didn't really have crusades in the name of a deity against infidels. It was actually fairly common for different religions to exchange ideas and syncretize.
Also different deities would require different roles. A war god might not have any use for a "healer of the flock", and a god of the sea might not have any use for preachers since anyone who lives or works by the sea probably would worship or pray to that god anyway, just to ensure their safety or to increase their catch of the day.
EDIT: My hot take of the day is that divine magic never should have been treated the way it is. In the real world and in many myths, anyone can pray to a deity to have miracles happen; in myths at least, the deity isn't restricted to answering only their priests and their priests aren't always able to get the deity to do things for them (hence, stories of priests feeling like their gods have abandoned them). Probably the closest thing I've seen to how I imagine divine magic should actually work is Divine Intervention.
That's because you've misunderstood me. I want less subclasses (but with choices within them like hunter or totemic warrior), so that they're not based on countless deities (which can be bred ad infinitum), but on roles. It's not who you serve, but how you serve, your talents and inclinations, and your deity's mission for you. Where's homogenization in clear distribution of roles? A chaplain is trained to be at the frontlines, a preacher/confessor specializes on social interactions, an augur is more versed in mystical, magical aspects of divine.
Also, a cleric that doesn't belong to any church is either a heretic, or a leader of his own sect. To learn about a deity and believe, you have to be in close contact with a religious organization or its followers, and even if you are a prodigy who's been contacted by god personally and can't keep silent about it, you're either taken in or stamped out, it's just how things naturally work.
Well, you're right about polytheistic faiths, although I always found it weird that default fantasy settings usually merge medieval europe (when even different confessions of the same faith waged war against each other) with ancient polytheism.
Yes, different single-aspect deities might require single roles, but it's not a versatile approach. Even a sea god that has no need for a church, still could use an augur to read portents in the skies and waves, and make weather forecasts, a preacher to perform rites for community (remember the priest of the Drowned God from GoT), and in case there's more than one god of the same thing or their interests clash (like Talos and Umberlee), they might use a chaplain...
If divine magic was inherently unreliable and random, no one would bother with it. Myths about fickle deities blessing strangers and abandoning their own priests make sense only in isolation, as myths. Such deity would lose believers and wither in a world with consequences. I find it amusing how faith works in China, I like their mindset in this regard. The very same temple may have shrines of Confucius, Buddha, some local pagan deity or spirit, and Karl Marx. Chinese pray to whatever entity they think works. And if prayers don't work, they punish the deity by desecrating their symbols, and over time they may discard the "useless" god altogether. In a way, this reminds me of yuan-ti that can devour their own gods.
Okay, see, this is where we're disconnecting. I'm not misunderstanding you. Your proposal is still nuttier than a fruitcake. Because what you want is to completely upend how things currently work. And that's just not going to happen. To call it a pipe dream isn't even fair to actual pipe dreams.
First off, the current domains already highlight how you serve. Each deity covers different aspects of life. Those domains are additional powers granted by one's connection to a deity in relation to both the deity's role in the larger world and the cleric's mission, so to speak.
Second, you're advocating for every deity to have similarly, if not identically, structured organizations under them. And you're demanding that a particular class must be part of such organizations. All for the sake of "how things naturally work." But that's not how things work, and your...solution is in search of a problem which doesn't exist. If you want your personal, homebrewed settings to work that way, you can do that. But a generic set of rules doesn't need all of that baggage. Because then you have to define those organizations. You have to define each deity in a way that would just add unnecessary bloat to each and every book published.
You're projecting baggage which doesn't need to be added on.
I called it a hot take for a reason. But I'm not suggesting that divine magic would be precisely like Divine Intervention where you're always rolling a d100, nor am I suggesting that classes be built around something that requires a roll of the dice to do anything. I'm suggesting that divine magic probably shouldn't have been a thing that had entire classes centered around it in the first place, and it would be a thing that anyone can potentially tap into, but you'd need to take certain backgrounds/feats/etc to make somewhat better use of it. Arcane magic is actually reliable because it's basically the "science" of D&D worlds, where people learn (to varying degrees of awareness) how to manipulate the fabric of reality to suit their needs, making it not too dissimilar to how we use physics, chemistry, biology, etc to manipulate our real world to benefit our species technologically.
Also I take some issue with the fact that the Ceremony spell and the Augury spell are even spells to begin with. Anyone with the Acolyte background should be able to do what the ceremony spell does imo without having to expend spell slots, and augury is just something that anyone knowledgeable enough about deities, "mundane" divination methods like reading tea leaves or casting runes, and the kinds of omens they present should be able to do as well. These are both things that should have fallen under the purview of the Religion skill, but almost anything that skill would be useful for otherwise gets relegated to one divine class or another, which is part of why it often goes underused.
As to how it relates to reworking Warlocks, I think Warlocks (if they want to really lean into the flavour of their making pacts with otherworldly patrons) should make it clear that that's what is happening. As it stands, there are no rules for actually making pacts with otherworldly patrons, other than devils in Descent into Avernus and fey in that one supplement to Wild Beyond the Witchlight that you have to download from the DM's Guild iirc. And there are no guidelines for how to handle the connection between the patron and the warlock. Like for example, can the patron actually talk to the warlock or vice-versa, and if so how? What are the limitations of this? Do you have to wait until 9th level when you unlock contact other plane to be able to do so? Also can you entreat the patron to do things beyond what the class itself provides, like sending a minion to help or refreshing your pact slots early, which doesn't officially happen until 20th level?
Well, I'm not conservative, I like to dream big and try different things. And given how playtest started... Did you expect crits to be taken away from casters, was that going to happen?
First off, what about monotheistic settings? How do you explain a trickery domain cleric in service of Jesus Christ? And there's 14 domains already, each presenting a limited thematic set tied to a limited single-minded god that demands all of its clerics be the same. And 14 domains is just bloated. Then there's redundant features like potent spellcasting and divine strike, or avatar of battle and saint of forge and fire.
All churches need not be the same. I want as many cleric subclasses as there's possible cleric roles. Some cults might have more aspects to their organizations, some might have less. Think of it like this: imagine if rogue or fighter subclasses were not based on roles, but on monolithic organizations that consist of one subclass. If clerics of Torm are all war domain, then Zhentarim rogues are all thieves and no other subclass, no other aspect, and the thief subclass itself is now called Zhentarim. And knights of Solamnia are all exclusively cavaliers. Because that's how cleric subclasses work right now. What I want is to merge existing subclasses into roles (like war, forge, and order merged into chaplain), so that instead of making your first and last subclass choice at level 1 and then losing all other options forever, you'd choose one of several options each time you gain a subclass feature. In other words, I want all subclasses to work like hunter ranger or totemic warrior barbarian, with choices within features, which can be achieved my merging together several subclasses wherever there's bloat. More choices, more variety, more customization. Other approach is subclass having basic features, with the rest being available through features like warlock invocations or artificer infusions. These are classes with the most customization, and I want this kinda model to apply to as many classes as possible.
Well, a part of that is explored in XGtE, there were tables with ideas for warlock's relationship with their patron. The rest is up for DM. Codifying that with rules would take away from freedom of choice. A good DM and a good player just know that pact itself is a perfect material for a personal storyline.
There's no rules because it depends on the Patron in question. For some people, they literally have a magic sword that grants them their powers and they carry said sword with them, and it communicates telepathically, just like all other sentient swords. Tome warlocks can use invocations to talk to anyone that signs their book - perhaps the reverse is true and the patron can use those powers to talk to the warlock as well. Familiars can be points of contact, or be the patron themselves; again borrowing from invocations, warlock can speak through the familiar, so patron probably can as well. A talisman-genie pact might be trapped in the same bottle-shaped talisman the warlock uses.
Farideh, from some D&D novels, had her cambion patron randomly show up and talk with her, before heading back to the hells again to chill. The fey are renowned for their connection to dreams, so one using those to remain in contact isn't a surprise; Dendar, the Nightmare Serpent, should likewise be big into dreams. GOO/fathomless warlocks likely have a telepathic patron, so... contact via telepathy should be the norm?
Generally speaking, patrons are primarily -teachers-, as warlocks are arcane classes and not primal nor divine, and its something that's been part of the warlock for the past threee editions. The patrons teach spells, so that does require interaction at some point. What that interaction is will depend on the individual patrons.
Warlock patrons are still npcs, so you can entreat them just like any other npc. That'll come down to social scenes and trying to convince them to do things.
As for the initial pact? Well, you just need to stumble across someone. Imps, cambioins and succubi are commonly the ones that approach others to tempt them into sin. Hags kidnap people. Kracken have cults. The undead are manifold, and sometimes possesses others, or are trapped in objects. You don't need rules for pacts, because honestly its going to depend on individual relationships. Lots of patrons are unbound by rules like the Lawful devils.
The game, as it currently exists, doesn't care about roles. And if we're to take the coastal wizards at their word, that One D&D is meant to be backwards compatible with 5e, then they still don't care about roles.
If you want to reduce clerics (and that's already off-topic, but I'll bite) down to whatever "roles" you think should be, then every conceivably deity or faith must follow that suit. The intention isn't to gate certain roles to specific traditions, is it?
I already hate this conversation because trying not to use proper language that delineates your ideals with how D&D has always worked is frustrating beyond all get out. Each world works with a pantheon, sometimes multiple pantheons. Even if you want to dip into monotheism with Christianity, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are more religions, faiths, deities in this world than you can shake a stick at. Never mind all the different sects that practice Christianity differently.
Build your world that way, if you must. But don't expect anyone to be on board with such radical change. It honestly sounds like you want to play 4e or PF2e. Go play those.
Subclasses in 5E don't have specific roles (which might partially be related to 4e) but they do seem to have specific themes, when it comes to cleric, the theme is usually related to their primary deity (I say primary as most people are likely to worship several gods with one god more than the rest) but it's not necessary that it has to be (there isn't a specific rule that says it has to be the case). A grave domain cleric is themed around life and death.
Another example of themes in warlock is hexblade, it's easy to confuse it for "weapons" but the true theme of hexblade is Shadowfell, only a single feature of hexblade actually relates to weapons and a couple of the expanded spell list options.
A roles based system might be simpler for understanding one's position in a party but a themes based system lends itself more to customization and role-play. There are arguments for both but 4e that was more (to my understanding, never played it) role based essentially failed (it was not popular) while 5e that is more themes based has succeeded (most played edition of D&D).
One D&D is suppose to be backwards compatible to both systems anyways, so re-doing subclasses makes things a tiny bit more difficult.
Until we see what they are going to do with rests its hard to say what changes they would need. I'm not sure I like the proposed fix as it seems to lock people into a play style fairly early in the game.
I'm going to mostly ignore talisman as I think they should just drop it, personally I'd drop the pacts entirely.
I'd roll enhanced familiars into the class at its default, instead of imp etc, I'd give it a base stat block and it would be themed to your patron and would act as a mouthpiece for the patron. Admittedly I loved the Shi'ar from AlQuadim but for me I think it would be cool if they are who you went to during your long rest to regain spells etc. But that may be a bridge too far for most.
Pact of the blade/tome I'd default that you have some kind of tome from the pact with your patron, it can take many forms etc, and invocations could lean into it like the pact of the tome. Blade I'd just make a invocation that modified your eldritch blast into melee attacks. If I were going to keep talisman I'd make armor of shadows a class feature that is tied to a object and have invocations tied to it replicating talismans effects.
Basically I'd have the core abilities of pacts part of the class for the most part and let invocations flesh it out, fix that terrible invocations and maybe give them another 4 or so over 20 levels.
Warlocks should gain more powers from their choice of pact. What the Hexblade gets is about the right amount. Make book and chain as significant.
Also, the warlock should have to choose one of Eldritch Blast, Hexblade, or powers related to mind control as a class ability.
You reminded me of something else I've been wondering. Will they do something to make the familiar's creature type actually matter? Right now, it's just a flavour thing that almost never comes up except in maybe the familiar's personality, but it would be kinda cool if having a celestial familiar gave you different benefits as opposed to a fey or fiend familiar. Also it would be nice if you had elemental and undead familiars too imo.
These are fair points. I suppose I was wondering about guidelines because maybe it might help make the DM's job a bit easier when it comes to handling the character's patron, especially for newer DMs who might not be sure how to collaborate with the warlock player on what they can do with their patron outside of strictly class features.
I don't like that idea as it soft locks you into a play style really early.