I’m sure this will never happen but I’d love to see the Warlock ditched from the players handbook and replaced with the artificer. Flavor-wise the warlock really isn’t all that unique. It’s too much like a cleric. A cleric gaining powers by worshipping a fiend could also be said to be in a pact with that fiend. Plus mechanically the warlock, bard, sorcerer and paladin are all charisma focused spell casters. That is a lot all based on the same attribute where there is only one Intelligence based class in the players handbook. Having the artificer instead would balance things out better. And a final point with Eldritch blast being their main thing the warlock is basically a gunslinger and I’ve never seen how that conceptually fits with them. Whereas tweaking the artificer a bit to give them an Eldritch blast pistol focus as one of their main features would suit their steampunk image a lot better. Now I do like playing warlocks, mechanically they are fun, and charisma skills are useful but I’ve always felt they were kind of redundant as a concept.
A) If anything this relates to D&D One so unfitting for this forum.
B) Considering that the PHB is written flavour-wise to be reflective of the "default" setting (in this case, Forgotten Realms), the Artificer sticks out like a sore thumb. The Artificer is all about high magic settings and widely created magic items. Base assumptions from the PHB to the DMG completely and utterly refute that notion.
C) You claim that the Warlock is thematically similar to other classes, specifically the cleric. Fact is, you can say that about the Sorcerer when you compare it to the Wizard. You can say that about the ranger when you compare it to the Rogue. You can say that about the Paladin when compared to the Cleric.
D) Admittedly, I agree that there are too many Chrisma casters.
E) Eldritch Blast does speak to hideously terrible game design. Eldritch Blast is too good of a cantrip, and it is the only cantrip that Warlock Invocations key off of. If Eldritch Blast wasn't so good, or if there were equally attractive Invocations that key off of other Cantrips, it would not be so stereotypical as you imply. BUT, doesn't the fighter spam their favourite weapon turn after turn. Doesn't the Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian, AND THE ROGUE, all typically make the same attack turn after turn! Somehow people don't care about the Fighter spamming their favourite weapon but too many Eldritch Blasts is a problem. Where is the logic in this?
A) I thought this was the dnd one forum, it’s the one I meant to address. I want something for the next edition so that would be the right forum.
B) not ever class from the players hand book suits all fantasy settings, and they never have. The players handbook should give players a wide range of options for a wide range of settings. Sure an artificer might seem like a steampunk setting character only but any DM and player working together could easily fit that character into any sort of setting from high fantasy to sword and sorcery with a bit of narrative.
C) yes, you could say that about all those and I think there is an argument for more classes being blended into each other. A sorcerer is pretty much just a charming wizard, a paladin a martial cleric. Mechanically and thematically I think the paladin is interesting, the sorcerer, well, a personality driven caster is, okay.
D) Eldritch blast is awesome, I love the idea of a cantrip you can build on with later abilities. I just don’t think the warlock, the cult leader charisma based character is the natural fit for the cannon cantrip.
And I posted this thread this afternoon. I don’t think the topic was unearthed arcana so I think my post was moved. Maybe. I had aimed for one dnd feedback.
I'd rather lose sorcerer than warlock, since Warlock is different to wizard while Sorcerer and Wizard are too similar but I don't think Artificer is a good replacement, while I think there is room for another INT based class, Artificer isn't really a great theming for the Forgotten Realms setting. I think a more specialized spellblade type class would fit better, something that could replace the niche of subclasses like Hexblade and Bladesinger.
That will never happen. And the reason is very simple: almost no one plays artificers. Instead warlock is one of the most played classes. I could give you many more reasons, like for example that the warlock fits much better in the fantasy that D&D sells. But the main reason is this: People want to play warlocks, but they don't want to play artificers. And it has nothing to do with the mechanical implementation of the class. There are simply too many people, rightly or wrongly, who see no place for artifice in their campaigns.
On the other hand they are not going to remove the sorcerer either. In this case I think the main reason is the publishing tradition of D&D. The Sorcerer has been around since second edition, and has been one of the main classes ever since. Although as a personal opinion, I also think that the wizard and the sorcerer are probably the two most similar classes thematically. But other than that, the sorcerer is an iconic class in D&D and they're not going to remove it from the PHB.
I'd rather lose sorcerer than warlock, since Warlock is different to wizard while Sorcerer and Wizard are too similar but I don't think Artificer is a good replacement, while I think there is room for another INT based class, Artificer isn't really a great theming for the Forgotten Realms setting. I think a more specialized spellblade type class would fit better, something that could replace the niche of subclasses like Hexblade and Bladesinger.
I think that if you were to retool the flavor of Artificer, instead of being "Steampunk technology fighter" to instead be, "Arcane Craftsman", it would fit in more easily. I think most Artificer players treat them as non-magical inventors who use technology to replicate the effects of magic, but I think if the idea was more just that they actually do perform regular magic in the same manner that all the other classes do (which, mechanically, you kind of have to... like, an Artificer still needs to be able to speak to cast spells with verbal components, even if their spellcasting is flavored as being tools doing it all for them). I think the Alchemist, as unpopular as it is among the Artificer subclasses, still feels like a classic fantasy archetype. A steampunk dude with a robot dog feels out of place in a traditional fantasy setting, but somebody who is constantly brewing potions and using them to produce magical effects feels perfectly natural.
warlock always felt to me like some DM-NPC stereotype that someone fleshed out in a what-if (my deadline was approaching) Dragon magazine article: mysterious power, mysterious plot dad (but not a god!), kooky abilities, liberal plot armors and/or laser beams...
then again, what is Artificer except a level 13+ Rogue sub-class Thief with a bit more crafting? if only they'd focused more on the deconstructing and macgyvering of magical items it could have been more in tune with the fantasy settings. should have called it alchemy and given it the witch subclass (or vice versa, whichever fits better in FR i guess).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I think R3sistance may have a point about the sorcerer. I get the impression it isn’t very popular whereas mechanically warlocks are fun and easy to play. Concept-wise I prefer the sorcerer and maybe ditching it and adding its flavor to the warlock would work.
As the artificer is now, it’s not a great class but it’s a great concept. All the current d&d settings have a place for an arcane crafter and not having one as a core class feels like something is missing. None of them really require warlocks since that roll is pretty much taken by clerics.
Or at the very least make Warlock’s intelligence based. In theory they researched about some powerful entity, learned rituals to draw its attention and swore a pact to it for power. That doesn’t sound like the source of their power is tied to their will or personality. You’d think they would be more like bookish loners than public leaders. Although I guess you could argue their charisma isn’t their own but something channeled from their patron.
I care not the abstract of which stat powers the Warlock (personally I think Wisdom makes more sense than either Int or Cha). I care about the completely unique dynamic of the relationship between the character and their patron - a dynamic that is fluid and that can be as symbiotic clownfish and anemones or as parasitic as Ophiocordyceps (the fungus that creates zombie ants) or anywhere in between. With the complete divorce of clerics and Palys from their deity, this is the only class where that relationship to a higher power is a core feature of both how they function as well as their backstory/relationship to the world.
I wouldn't rule out the Int Warlock thing. In D&D Next it was already like this, and the developers changed it simply because some playtesters complained. Also, seeing that they are trying to include some ideas discarded from D&D Next (I didn't remember, but a few days ago a thread appeared that reminded that the Druid from D&D Next already used templates for the wild shape).
In any case, it seems to me that an int warlock makes a lot more sense than a char warlock. And I think we're going to see it in D&D One.
I'd actually gladly trade sorcerer for a spellblade. The game is begging for an actual arcane gish class to happen.
Isn't that basically the artificer? They're the arcane half casters that can also melee to go along with the holy half caster (Paladin) and the nature half caster (Ranger). They probably need one new subclass that leans into the spell aspect more and they're good.
I'd actually gladly trade sorcerer for a spellblade. The game is begging for an actual arcane gish class to happen.
That's my wet dream. A whole gish class. And they would have room for many different subclasses. The elemental warrior, the soul warrior, the spell breaker, the staff mage, the aberration slayer, the psychic blade, etc... And you can also include subclasses that already exist such as the hexblade, the eldritch knight, the bladesinger and/or or the arcane triscker.
But all that is a letter to Santa Claus. I don't think they will make a class for the gish, and they will continue to subclass them in other classes.
Warlock is the most played caster in the game, beating even Cleric. No way in Baator do they get rid of it. And they've committed to all 12 of the PHB classes coming back in the OneD&D PHB anyway.
Now on the attribute point, on that I agree with you, the Warlock is a good candidate for being able to choose their key ability rather than being yet another Charisma caster. Tomelock in particular should have the option of being Int-based. But that's a much more realistic ask than deleting the class completely.
Why replace when you can just add? Having both an Artificer and a Warlock in the core rules is perfectly viable.
Also, while I am very pro-Artificer (even though I haven't yet played the class myself), Warlock is the simplest and most newbie friend ly caster, and both it and Sorcerer are awesome. Removing a simple option to replace it with a complex one that is primarily for experienced players is not a good or welcoming idea. Admittedly, Warlock isn't exactly simple, but it is compared to all the other full casters and the fact that almost every class with lots of spells is much more complicated than necessary doesn't endear me to the idea of removing and replacing this class.
On top of all that, Artificer is a slightly less generic and more limited class concept. I think it's great and can fit into a large variety of worlds, but the version of it as is isn't as open as Warlock, and replacing a successful class that is used and enjoyed by numerous players for one that doesn't work in some campaigns is not a good decision. Again, why replace when you can just add? If I were in charge of designing the next edition of D&D, I would probably have 16 classes.
Before I end my TedTalk, I would just like to say that this almost certainly isn't happening anyways, because as Psyren pointed out, the developers have already said that the 12 core classes will be in the next PHB, IIRC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Because there's an extremely limited amount of space in the PHB and every piece of content that gets into it is five pieces of content that can't be shoved in. Book printing is not an infinite game; the higher a book's page count gets the more it costs to print, and the cost-to-page-count ratio is not linear. The PHB can't get anymuch bigger than it already is, so adding three hundred and seventeen new Ultra Simple Classes for People Who Hate Rules and Don't Want to Learn D&D is a nonstarter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m sure this will never happen but I’d love to see the Warlock ditched from the players handbook and replaced with the artificer. Flavor-wise the warlock really isn’t all that unique. It’s too much like a cleric. A cleric gaining powers by worshipping a fiend could also be said to be in a pact with that fiend. Plus mechanically the warlock, bard, sorcerer and paladin are all charisma focused spell casters. That is a lot all based on the same attribute where there is only one Intelligence based class in the players handbook. Having the artificer instead would balance things out better. And a final point with Eldritch blast being their main thing the warlock is basically a gunslinger and I’ve never seen how that conceptually fits with them. Whereas tweaking the artificer a bit to give them an Eldritch blast pistol focus as one of their main features would suit their steampunk image a lot better. Now I do like playing warlocks, mechanically they are fun, and charisma skills are useful but I’ve always felt they were kind of redundant as a concept.
A) If anything this relates to D&D One so unfitting for this forum.
B) Considering that the PHB is written flavour-wise to be reflective of the "default" setting (in this case, Forgotten Realms), the Artificer sticks out like a sore thumb. The Artificer is all about high magic settings and widely created magic items. Base assumptions from the PHB to the DMG completely and utterly refute that notion.
C) You claim that the Warlock is thematically similar to other classes, specifically the cleric. Fact is, you can say that about the Sorcerer when you compare it to the Wizard. You can say that about the ranger when you compare it to the Rogue. You can say that about the Paladin when compared to the Cleric.
D) Admittedly, I agree that there are too many Chrisma casters.
E) Eldritch Blast does speak to hideously terrible game design. Eldritch Blast is too good of a cantrip, and it is the only cantrip that Warlock Invocations key off of. If Eldritch Blast wasn't so good, or if there were equally attractive Invocations that key off of other Cantrips, it would not be so stereotypical as you imply. BUT, doesn't the fighter spam their favourite weapon turn after turn. Doesn't the Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian, AND THE ROGUE, all typically make the same attack turn after turn! Somehow people don't care about the Fighter spamming their favourite weapon but too many Eldritch Blasts is a problem. Where is the logic in this?
Well,
A) I thought this was the dnd one forum, it’s the one I meant to address. I want something for the next edition so that would be the right forum.
B) not ever class from the players hand book suits all fantasy settings, and they never have. The players handbook should give players a wide range of options for a wide range of settings. Sure an artificer might seem like a steampunk setting character only but any DM and player working together could easily fit that character into any sort of setting from high fantasy to sword and sorcery with a bit of narrative.
C) yes, you could say that about all those and I think there is an argument for more classes being blended into each other. A sorcerer is pretty much just a charming wizard, a paladin a martial cleric. Mechanically and thematically I think the paladin is interesting, the sorcerer, well, a personality driven caster is, okay.
D) Eldritch blast is awesome, I love the idea of a cantrip you can build on with later abilities. I just don’t think the warlock, the cult leader charisma based character is the natural fit for the cannon cantrip.
And I posted this thread this afternoon. I don’t think the topic was unearthed arcana so I think my post was moved. Maybe. I had aimed for one dnd feedback.
I'd rather lose sorcerer than warlock, since Warlock is different to wizard while Sorcerer and Wizard are too similar but I don't think Artificer is a good replacement, while I think there is room for another INT based class, Artificer isn't really a great theming for the Forgotten Realms setting. I think a more specialized spellblade type class would fit better, something that could replace the niche of subclasses like Hexblade and Bladesinger.
That will never happen. And the reason is very simple: almost no one plays artificers. Instead warlock is one of the most played classes.
I could give you many more reasons, like for example that the warlock fits much better in the fantasy that D&D sells.
But the main reason is this: People want to play warlocks, but they don't want to play artificers. And it has nothing to do with the mechanical implementation of the class. There are simply too many people, rightly or wrongly, who see no place for artifice in their campaigns.
On the other hand they are not going to remove the sorcerer either. In this case I think the main reason is the publishing tradition of D&D. The Sorcerer has been around since second edition, and has been one of the main classes ever since. Although as a personal opinion, I also think that the wizard and the sorcerer are probably the two most similar classes thematically. But other than that, the sorcerer is an iconic class in D&D and they're not going to remove it from the PHB.
Kill sorcerer and bring in warlord. Kill warlock and bring in artificer.
Add those two classes in later.
I think that if you were to retool the flavor of Artificer, instead of being "Steampunk technology fighter" to instead be, "Arcane Craftsman", it would fit in more easily. I think most Artificer players treat them as non-magical inventors who use technology to replicate the effects of magic, but I think if the idea was more just that they actually do perform regular magic in the same manner that all the other classes do (which, mechanically, you kind of have to... like, an Artificer still needs to be able to speak to cast spells with verbal components, even if their spellcasting is flavored as being tools doing it all for them). I think the Alchemist, as unpopular as it is among the Artificer subclasses, still feels like a classic fantasy archetype. A steampunk dude with a robot dog feels out of place in a traditional fantasy setting, but somebody who is constantly brewing potions and using them to produce magical effects feels perfectly natural.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
warlock always felt to me like some DM-NPC stereotype that someone fleshed out in a what-if (my deadline was approaching) Dragon magazine article: mysterious power, mysterious plot dad (but not a god!), kooky abilities, liberal plot armors and/or laser beams...
then again, what is Artificer except a level 13+ Rogue sub-class Thief with a bit more crafting? if only they'd focused more on the deconstructing and macgyvering of magical items it could have been more in tune with the fantasy settings. should have called it alchemy and given it the witch subclass (or vice versa, whichever fits better in FR i guess).
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Worse idea I have seen in a long time. The forum needs a down vote option just for this post and this post only.
P.S. Artificer is the only class I have never had any interest in playing. Ever.
I think R3sistance may have a point about the sorcerer. I get the impression it isn’t very popular whereas mechanically warlocks are fun and easy to play. Concept-wise I prefer the sorcerer and maybe ditching it and adding its flavor to the warlock would work.
As the artificer is now, it’s not a great class but it’s a great concept. All the current d&d settings have a place for an arcane crafter and not having one as a core class feels like something is missing. None of them really require warlocks since that roll is pretty much taken by clerics.
Or at the very least make Warlock’s intelligence based. In theory they researched about some powerful entity, learned rituals to draw its attention and swore a pact to it for power. That doesn’t sound like the source of their power is tied to their will or personality. You’d think they would be more like bookish loners than public leaders. Although I guess you could argue their charisma isn’t their own but something channeled from their patron.
I care not the abstract of which stat powers the Warlock (personally I think Wisdom makes more sense than either Int or Cha). I care about the completely unique dynamic of the relationship between the character and their patron - a dynamic that is fluid and that can be as symbiotic clownfish and anemones or as parasitic as Ophiocordyceps (the fungus that creates zombie ants) or anywhere in between. With the complete divorce of clerics and Palys from their deity, this is the only class where that relationship to a higher power is a core feature of both how they function as well as their backstory/relationship to the world.
And that doesn't even touch on how dynamic all the invocations make the class. In fact, I hope if/when they rethink the druid, the instead go the way of the warlock and create invocations for the druid: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/druid/165794-better-oned-d-druid-wild-invocations
I wouldn't rule out the Int Warlock thing. In D&D Next it was already like this, and the developers changed it simply because some playtesters complained. Also, seeing that they are trying to include some ideas discarded from D&D Next (I didn't remember, but a few days ago a thread appeared that reminded that the Druid from D&D Next already used templates for the wild shape).
In any case, it seems to me that an int warlock makes a lot more sense than a char warlock. And I think we're going to see it in D&D One.
I'd actually gladly trade sorcerer for a spellblade. The game is begging for an actual arcane gish class to happen.
Isn't that basically the artificer? They're the arcane half casters that can also melee to go along with the holy half caster (Paladin) and the nature half caster (Ranger). They probably need one new subclass that leans into the spell aspect more and they're good.
Ironically in the original 5e playtest, sorcerer was meant to be the spellblade type character (though with a very different theme).
Will point based two-thirds caster (yep you got 2nd level spells at 4th level), with all armour and weapon proficiency. d8 hit die.
As you burnt through your will point abilities to cast spells and class features, you would gradually manifest more features of your bloodline.
That's my wet dream. A whole gish class. And they would have room for many different subclasses. The elemental warrior, the soul warrior, the spell breaker, the staff mage, the aberration slayer, the psychic blade, etc... And you can also include subclasses that already exist such as the hexblade, the eldritch knight, the bladesinger and/or or the arcane triscker.
But all that is a letter to Santa Claus. I don't think they will make a class for the gish, and they will continue to subclass them in other classes.
Warlock is the most played caster in the game, beating even Cleric. No way in Baator do they get rid of it. And they've committed to all 12 of the PHB classes coming back in the OneD&D PHB anyway.
Now on the attribute point, on that I agree with you, the Warlock is a good candidate for being able to choose their key ability rather than being yet another Charisma caster. Tomelock in particular should have the option of being Int-based. But that's a much more realistic ask than deleting the class completely.
Why replace when you can just add? Having both an Artificer and a Warlock in the core rules is perfectly viable.
Also, while I am very pro-Artificer (even though I haven't yet played the class myself), Warlock is the simplest and most newbie friend ly caster, and both it and Sorcerer are awesome. Removing a simple option to replace it with a complex one that is primarily for experienced players is not a good or welcoming idea. Admittedly, Warlock isn't exactly simple, but it is compared to all the other full casters and the fact that almost every class with lots of spells is much more complicated than necessary doesn't endear me to the idea of removing and replacing this class.
On top of all that, Artificer is a slightly less generic and more limited class concept. I think it's great and can fit into a large variety of worlds, but the version of it as is isn't as open as Warlock, and replacing a successful class that is used and enjoyed by numerous players for one that doesn't work in some campaigns is not a good decision. Again, why replace when you can just add? If I were in charge of designing the next edition of D&D, I would probably have 16 classes.
Before I end my TedTalk, I would just like to say that this almost certainly isn't happening anyways, because as Psyren pointed out, the developers have already said that the 12 core classes will be in the next PHB, IIRC.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Because there's an extremely limited amount of space in the PHB and every piece of content that gets into it is five pieces of content that can't be shoved in. Book printing is not an infinite game; the higher a book's page count gets the more it costs to print, and the cost-to-page-count ratio is not linear. The PHB can't get anymuch bigger than it already is, so adding three hundred and seventeen new Ultra Simple Classes for People Who Hate Rules and Don't Want to Learn D&D is a nonstarter.
Please do not contact or message me.