Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful. Theoretically, that will be mitigated by turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature rather than a cantrip depending on how it will scale. My assumption is, as a class feature your number of beams will scale based on your warlock level rather than character level. I hope they also make eldritch blast a bit more thematic in damage type too. Force is great from a min max perspective, but why is my fiendlock not throwing bolts of hellfire? Why is my celestial lock not throwing radiant bolts? That's a thematic change that I am really hoping for is that your EB will now have a damage type based on your patron.
As to your original point on sorcerer, I think it actually works better delaying til level 3 than warlock does. Since it's inate, I can see that you might start to manifest your basic powers without a whole lot of necessary flavor. You're just getting your base spells; the source doesn't really matter between one sorc and the next. The sorc has a lot more to choose from (and more flexibility) than the warlock does. it's got more spells to choose from, it's got more spell slots to cast them with, and it's got more cantrips to fall back on than the warlock. The warlock /needs/ it's patron flavor up front. for example you strip draconic away from a level 1 sorc, it's still got quite a bit of kit to work with. Strip fiend away from a fiendlock, and it's a bad rogue with a heavy crossbow and no sneak attack or stat bonus on it's damage rolls, plus a whopping 1 spell/rest on a very limited spell list (of which many of the good ones come from the patron)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
But do you think they will change warlocks to use intelligence by default, or would it be like a new class quality in which it would not have a preset which stat it will use? (Leaving it to the player's choice in the first level of the sorcerer, being able to choose between intelligence, charisma or wisdom, thus being a wild card when it comes to multiclassing with any spellcasting class.)
PS: If it were the player's choice, it could lead to different consequences depending on the statistics, such as a proficiency in tune with what was chosen and other consequences that are glimpsed at certain levels.
"baby pact" sounds insulting or weird at first..... however the idea that a warlock has a "trial pact" for a minor power trade and then a "main patron pact" really enforces the idea of charisma style casting. You and a patron(or even different patrons) get along and weal and deal for new powers does seem on point for their casting concept.
I could see a fun narrative where you start with a lot of mini pact themes, (summons spells, find familar, unseen servant ect.) and slowly gain bigger magic contracts. However I also see potential idea conflicts in some groups. (where someone says another interpretation is wrong). It could cause further division of concepts similar to how people fight over what is important to a ranger concept.
Conspiracy theory time(please take with a grain of salt):
The big take away for me (from the whole summit) was the borderline insane idea of "onednd" being "5e revised." There is so much going on in that simple concept. wotc took a survey and specifically asked if they thought 5e was holding strong or on its way out.(my words not theirs). my guess is enough people wanted 5e to stay strong but not enough to make it a viable business strategy. so they are making really making "5e Light". a kid and streaming friendly version to hold on to the 5e old base crowd while bringing in new people. that's my idea of their play anyway it could be far off.
However I do not believe the insistence that the Reguar classes are part of the options going forward is a good one. Do you really think dms or players will be happy if a player insists on using PHB rangers or Bards at the same tabel as a one bard. It severely adds complexity and is not a reduction.(which seems to be a main goal).
I think creating a clear division between 5e light and 5e would be better. However I do not really want a light version I just wanted clarity. I enjoy the level of complexity in regular 5e. not too much but not too little. That balance is what made it my favorite system. When i play rules light other systems do it better than "one" seems to.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful. Theoretically, that will be mitigated by turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature rather than a cantrip depending on how it will scale. My assumption is, as a class feature your number of beams will scale based on your warlock level rather than character level. I hope they also make eldritch blast a bit more thematic in damage type too. Force is great from a min max perspective, but why is my fiendlock not throwing bolts of hellfire? Why is my celestial lock not throwing radiant bolts? That's a thematic change that I am really hoping for is that your EB will now have a damage type based on your patron.
As to your original point on sorcerer, I think it actually works better delaying til level 3 than warlock does. Since it's inate, I can see that you might start to manifest your basic powers without a whole lot of necessary flavor. You're just getting your base spells; the source doesn't really matter between one sorc and the next. The sorc has a lot more to choose from (and more flexibility) than the warlock does. it's got more spells to choose from, it's got more spell slots to cast them with, and it's got more cantrips to fall back on than the warlock. The warlock /needs/ it's patron flavor up front. for example you strip draconic away from a level 1 sorc, it's still got quite a bit of kit to work with. Strip fiend away from a fiendlock, and it's a bad rogue with a heavy crossbow and no sneak attack or stat bonus on it's damage rolls, plus a whopping 1 spell/rest on a very limited spell list (of which many of the good ones come from the patron)
If they give Warlocks more at 1st level while the warlock is still just digging up secret, arcane lore, and don’t actually acquire patronage until they’ve found enough arcane lore to make a pact at 3rd level, I can see that working quite well.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful. Theoretically, that will be mitigated by turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature rather than a cantrip depending on how it will scale. My assumption is, as a class feature your number of beams will scale based on your warlock level rather than character level. I hope they also make eldritch blast a bit more thematic in damage type too. Force is great from a min max perspective, but why is my fiendlock not throwing bolts of hellfire? Why is my celestial lock not throwing radiant bolts? That's a thematic change that I am really hoping for is that your EB will now have a damage type based on your patron.
As to your original point on sorcerer, I think it actually works better delaying til level 3 than warlock does. Since it's inate, I can see that you might start to manifest your basic powers without a whole lot of necessary flavor. You're just getting your base spells; the source doesn't really matter between one sorc and the next. The sorc has a lot more to choose from (and more flexibility) than the warlock does. it's got more spells to choose from, it's got more spell slots to cast them with, and it's got more cantrips to fall back on than the warlock. The warlock /needs/ it's patron flavor up front. for example you strip draconic away from a level 1 sorc, it's still got quite a bit of kit to work with. Strip fiend away from a fiendlock, and it's a bad rogue with a heavy crossbow and no sneak attack or stat bonus on it's damage rolls, plus a whopping 1 spell/rest on a very limited spell list (of which many of the good ones come from the patron)
If they give Warlocks more at 1st level while the warlock is still just digging up secret, arcane lore, and don’t actually acquire patronage until they’ve found enough arcane lore to make a pact at 3rd level, I can see that working quite well.
honestly I think they will clear up the "Pact magic" and regular "spellcasting" slot cross over. meaning they don't support coffee style feature manipulations. That would make the stacking of so many Charisma casters not as big of a deal.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful. Theoretically, that will be mitigated by turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature rather than a cantrip depending on how it will scale. My assumption is, as a class feature your number of beams will scale based on your warlock level rather than character level. I hope they also make eldritch blast a bit more thematic in damage type too. Force is great from a min max perspective, but why is my fiendlock not throwing bolts of hellfire? Why is my celestial lock not throwing radiant bolts? That's a thematic change that I am really hoping for is that your EB will now have a damage type based on your patron.
As to your original point on sorcerer, I think it actually works better delaying til level 3 than warlock does. Since it's inate, I can see that you might start to manifest your basic powers without a whole lot of necessary flavor. You're just getting your base spells; the source doesn't really matter between one sorc and the next. The sorc has a lot more to choose from (and more flexibility) than the warlock does. it's got more spells to choose from, it's got more spell slots to cast them with, and it's got more cantrips to fall back on than the warlock. The warlock /needs/ it's patron flavor up front. for example you strip draconic away from a level 1 sorc, it's still got quite a bit of kit to work with. Strip fiend away from a fiendlock, and it's a bad rogue with a heavy crossbow and no sneak attack or stat bonus on it's damage rolls, plus a whopping 1 spell/rest on a very limited spell list (of which many of the good ones come from the patron)
If they give Warlocks more at 1st level while the warlock is still just digging up secret, arcane lore, and don’t actually acquire patronage until they’ve found enough arcane lore to make a pact at 3rd level, I can see that working quite well.
I dont really view it as a warlock without the patron, personally
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful. Theoretically, that will be mitigated by turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature rather than a cantrip depending on how it will scale. My assumption is, as a class feature your number of beams will scale based on your warlock level rather than character level. I hope they also make eldritch blast a bit more thematic in damage type too. Force is great from a min max perspective, but why is my fiendlock not throwing bolts of hellfire? Why is my celestial lock not throwing radiant bolts? That's a thematic change that I am really hoping for is that your EB will now have a damage type based on your patron.
As to your original point on sorcerer, I think it actually works better delaying til level 3 than warlock does. Since it's inate, I can see that you might start to manifest your basic powers without a whole lot of necessary flavor. You're just getting your base spells; the source doesn't really matter between one sorc and the next. The sorc has a lot more to choose from (and more flexibility) than the warlock does. it's got more spells to choose from, it's got more spell slots to cast them with, and it's got more cantrips to fall back on than the warlock. The warlock /needs/ it's patron flavor up front. for example you strip draconic away from a level 1 sorc, it's still got quite a bit of kit to work with. Strip fiend away from a fiendlock, and it's a bad rogue with a heavy crossbow and no sneak attack or stat bonus on it's damage rolls, plus a whopping 1 spell/rest on a very limited spell list (of which many of the good ones come from the patron)
If they give Warlocks more at 1st level while the warlock is still just digging up secret, arcane lore, and don’t actually acquire patronage until they’ve found enough arcane lore to make a pact at 3rd level, I can see that working quite well.
honestly I think they will clear up the "Pact magic" and regular "spellcasting" slot cross over. meaning they don't support coffee style feature manipulations. That would make the stacking of so many Charisma casters not as big of a deal.
I dont think coffee lock is the biggest issue. EB and hexblade are the biggest issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful. Theoretically, that will be mitigated by turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature rather than a cantrip depending on how it will scale. My assumption is, as a class feature your number of beams will scale based on your warlock level rather than character level. I hope they also make eldritch blast a bit more thematic in damage type too. Force is great from a min max perspective, but why is my fiendlock not throwing bolts of hellfire? Why is my celestial lock not throwing radiant bolts? That's a thematic change that I am really hoping for is that your EB will now have a damage type based on your patron.
As to your original point on sorcerer, I think it actually works better delaying til level 3 than warlock does. Since it's inate, I can see that you might start to manifest your basic powers without a whole lot of necessary flavor. You're just getting your base spells; the source doesn't really matter between one sorc and the next. The sorc has a lot more to choose from (and more flexibility) than the warlock does. it's got more spells to choose from, it's got more spell slots to cast them with, and it's got more cantrips to fall back on than the warlock. The warlock /needs/ it's patron flavor up front. for example you strip draconic away from a level 1 sorc, it's still got quite a bit of kit to work with. Strip fiend away from a fiendlock, and it's a bad rogue with a heavy crossbow and no sneak attack or stat bonus on it's damage rolls, plus a whopping 1 spell/rest on a very limited spell list (of which many of the good ones come from the patron)
If they give Warlocks more at 1st level while the warlock is still just digging up secret, arcane lore, and don’t actually acquire patronage until they’ve found enough arcane lore to make a pact at 3rd level, I can see that working quite well.
I dont really view it as a warlock without the patron, personally
I don’t view most characters as fully fledged until they get their subclasses, and that’s all happening at 3rd level in 1DD, so the Warlock will be in the same boat as everyone else. 🤷♂️
It doesnt have to be fully fledged, but it does have to have a patron. its one of the few classes that will really feel wrong to me without a patron from level 1, perhaps only
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I get why they're backing away from 1st level subclasses to avoid frontloading too much for dips, but it still just makes no sense for classes where your subclass pick is so intrinsic to the character's origin/identity to not actually make the choice until level 3. Granted, the way I usually hear it you don't get many campaigns starting at levels 1 or 2, so perhaps it won't actually mean that much in practice. Still worried what the "Mages" are going to look like if everyone is using a single spell list and Wizards and Sorcs get the exact same number of spells they prepare in the exact same way.
I get why they're backing away from 1st level subclasses to avoid frontloading too much for dips, but it still just makes no sense for classes where your subclass pick is so intrinsic to the character's origin/identity to not actually make the choice until level 3. Granted, the way I usually hear it you don't get many campaigns starting at levels 1 or 2, so perhaps it won't actually mean that much in practice. Still worried what the "Mages" are going to look like if everyone is using a single spell list and Wizards and Sorcs get the exact same number of spells they prepare in the exact same way.
Well, we have already seen that the spell lists aren't used the exact same way by every class. For example the Bard can only prepare spells from the transmutation, divination, illusion and enchantment schools from Arcane. Rangers do all EXCEPT evocation from primal. It would not be crazy to think Wizards will get the whole Arcane list but Sorcs will be limited in some way, and I am almost counting on Warlocks being priced out of evocation, I would be even less surprised if they are heavy limited to basically have the same list as bards except trading illusion for necromancy with "baby pacts" granting other schools or something. Either way I am sure Sorcs and wizards will prepare the same number of spells from the arcane list, but maybe sorcs may not have access to the whole list. And warlocks are going to be VERY different in their preps.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful.
Warlock should get to choose, which it sounds like they're doing so I'm on board. After all , when it comes to negotiating a favorable contract, both high Int and high Cha are useful.
I think the bit that makes it mental gymnastics for a number of people is reconciling the idea that the *character* is choosing the subclass at lvl 3, like a prospective student applying to a University for specific degrees they want to study for. Which makes Sorcerers and Warlocks tricky, as their power sources are built into their character backstories given the way they are currently written.
To be fair, there's nothing stopping you from rolling a die to see what sorcerer subclass you get if you truly want it to be driven by chance or fate, just like you can roll for your stats or your background or your starting gold etc.
Yeah it's probably true that some percentage, maybe even a high percentage of sorcerers have absolutely no say in the subclass they end up with in-universe, but D&D is still a game, and if it's a choice between "realism" or fun gameplay for me then gameplay is going to win every single time.
I get why they're backing away from 1st level subclasses to avoid frontloading too much for dips, but it still just makes no sense for classes where your subclass pick is so intrinsic to the character's origin/identity to not actually make the choice until level 3. Granted, the way I usually hear it you don't get many campaigns starting at levels 1 or 2, so perhaps it won't actually mean that much in practice. Still worried what the "Mages" are going to look like if everyone is using a single spell list and Wizards and Sorcs get the exact same number of spells they prepare in the exact same way.
Wizards and Sorcerers had the same spell list for most of D&D's history so I don't think that's a big deal. Rather I think the bigger problem will be the spellbook, if Sorcerers can prep from the whole Arcane list and Wizards can only prep what they've got in their book then that's going to be a problem. But I can't think of how they'd restrict sorcerers that people would be fine with either.
I do understand them wanting to dump spontaneous casters from tbhe game as it's way too punishing for new players while every experienced player ends up with really samey builds. So I guess we'll have to see what they come up with. Sorcerer is my favorite full caster so I'm pretty eager to see it.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful.
Warlock should get to choose, which it sounds like they're doing so I'm on board. After all , when it comes to negotiating a favorable contract, both high Int and high Cha are useful.
I think the bit that makes it mental gymnastics for a number of people is reconciling the idea that the *character* is choosing the subclass at lvl 3, like a prospective student applying to a University for specific degrees they want to study for. Which makes Sorcerers and Warlocks tricky, as their power sources are built into their character backstories given the way they are currently written.
To be fair, there's nothing stopping you from rolling a die to see what sorcerer subclass you get if you truly want it to be driven by chance or fate, just like you can roll for your stats or your background or your starting gold etc.
Yeah it's probably true that some percentage, maybe even a high percentage of sorcerers have absolutely no say in the subclass they end up with in-universe, but D&D is still a game, and if it's a choice between "realism" or fun gameplay for me then gameplay is going to win every single time.
I get why they're backing away from 1st level subclasses to avoid frontloading too much for dips, but it still just makes no sense for classes where your subclass pick is so intrinsic to the character's origin/identity to not actually make the choice until level 3. Granted, the way I usually hear it you don't get many campaigns starting at levels 1 or 2, so perhaps it won't actually mean that much in practice. Still worried what the "Mages" are going to look like if everyone is using a single spell list and Wizards and Sorcs get the exact same number of spells they prepare in the exact same way.
Wizards and Sorcerers had the same spell list for most of D&D's history so I don't think that's a big deal. Rather I think the bigger problem will be the spellbook, if Sorcerers can prep from the whole Arcane list and Wizards can only prep what they've got in their book then that's going to be a problem. But I can't think of how they'd restrict sorcerers that people would be fine with either.
I do understand them wanting to dump spontaneous casters from tbhe game as it's way too punishing for new players while every experienced player ends up with really samey builds. So I guess we'll have to see what they come up with. Sorcerer is my favorite full caster so I'm pretty eager to see it.
I don't think you are going to need to worry about the spell book thing. We will see, but I have been getting the vibe that the spell book will be a different mechanic and the wizard will be able to prep from the whole list and the book will just be for rituals or a flavor thing.
It doesnt have to be fully fledged, but it does have to have a patron. its one of the few classes that will really feel wrong to me without a patron from level 1, perhaps only
It doesnt have to be fully fledged, but it does have to have a patron. its one of the few classes that will really feel wrong to me without a patron from level 1, perhaps only
I kinda feel that way about Clerics.
I disagree, to a point, with both of you. I think warlock will be fine with subclass at 3rd same with sorcerer. It will probably require slight tweaking of the class description.
They could be researching their arcane lore or delving into the deep dark secrets of the weave, or some such, and gain their spellcasting like they do now. Even start learning invocation until they catch the interest of a powerful entity. But they will have some power levels 1-2. Maybe the Boon since it isn’t tied to an actual patron, similar to the Cleric’s Orders.
And as far as clerics, I think they are fine as is. They still derive their power from a deity (or whatever) and it isn’t until 3rd level that their “source” of their power is “granted” to them as their domain.
It doesnt have to be fully fledged, but it does have to have a patron. its one of the few classes that will really feel wrong to me without a patron from level 1, perhaps only
Disagree with this, they are seekers of arcane knowledge. Finding enough arcane knowledge to be level 1-2 without a patron seems a pretty easy task.
It doesnt have to be fully fledged, but it does have to have a patron. its one of the few classes that will really feel wrong to me without a patron from level 1, perhaps only
I kinda feel that way about Clerics.
yeah, I agree with you there to an extent. They need a god, but not necessarily their subclass. I feel the patron is as important to a warlock as the god is to the priest.
A warlock picking up knowledge without a patron, imo, is just a wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful.
Warlock should get to choose, which it sounds like they're doing so I'm on board. After all , when it comes to negotiating a favorable contract, both high Int and high Cha are useful.
I think the bit that makes it mental gymnastics for a number of people is reconciling the idea that the *character* is choosing the subclass at lvl 3, like a prospective student applying to a University for specific degrees they want to study for. Which makes Sorcerers and Warlocks tricky, as their power sources are built into their character backstories given the way they are currently written.
To be fair, there's nothing stopping you from rolling a die to see what sorcerer subclass you get if you truly want it to be driven by chance or fate, just like you can roll for your stats or your background or your starting gold etc.
Yeah it's probably true that some percentage, maybe even a high percentage of sorcerers have absolutely no say in the subclass they end up with in-universe, but D&D is still a game, and if it's a choice between "realism" or fun gameplay for me then gameplay is going to win every single time.
I get why they're backing away from 1st level subclasses to avoid frontloading too much for dips, but it still just makes no sense for classes where your subclass pick is so intrinsic to the character's origin/identity to not actually make the choice until level 3. Granted, the way I usually hear it you don't get many campaigns starting at levels 1 or 2, so perhaps it won't actually mean that much in practice. Still worried what the "Mages" are going to look like if everyone is using a single spell list and Wizards and Sorcs get the exact same number of spells they prepare in the exact same way.
Wizards and Sorcerers had the same spell list for most of D&D's history so I don't think that's a big deal. Rather I think the bigger problem will be the spellbook, if Sorcerers can prep from the whole Arcane list and Wizards can only prep what they've got in their book then that's going to be a problem. But I can't think of how they'd restrict sorcerers that people would be fine with either.
I do understand them wanting to dump spontaneous casters from tbhe game as it's way too punishing for new players while every experienced player ends up with really samey builds. So I guess we'll have to see what they come up with. Sorcerer is my favorite full caster so I'm pretty eager to see it.
I don't think you are going to need to worry about the spell book thing. We will see, but I have been getting the vibe that the spell book will be a different mechanic and the wizard will be able to prep from the whole list and the book will just be for rituals or a flavor thing.
That sounds terrible to me. The only people who should have access to the entire list are those who have their powers handed to them from a god or something. The Bard should not know every spell, the sorcerer shouldn't, none of the arcane casters should. It is such terrible world building in the search of unifying everything.
They should have instead expanded the spell book concept to the other arcane casters with maybe the sorcerer as the lone exception and still using a known spell system but with enough known it was not nearly as punishing.
It doesnt have to be fully fledged, but it does have to have a patron. its one of the few classes that will really feel wrong to me without a patron from level 1, perhaps only
I kinda feel that way about Clerics.
yeah, I agree with you there to an extent. They need a god, but not necessarily their subclass. I feel the patron is as important to a warlock as the god is to the priest.
A warlock picking up knowledge without a patron, imo, is just a wizard.
Well think about it. In the lore they spend time delving for secret arcane knowledge before making a pact, so why not make that 1st & 2nd level?
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being.
Seems definitive to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not a problem. Those are the two classes I am personally most emotionally invested in. I too believe that Warlock /should/ be an int caster. Charisma was a mistake imo because it led to too many warlock dip for making bards, paladins and sorcerers being even more powerful. Theoretically, that will be mitigated by turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature rather than a cantrip depending on how it will scale. My assumption is, as a class feature your number of beams will scale based on your warlock level rather than character level. I hope they also make eldritch blast a bit more thematic in damage type too. Force is great from a min max perspective, but why is my fiendlock not throwing bolts of hellfire? Why is my celestial lock not throwing radiant bolts? That's a thematic change that I am really hoping for is that your EB will now have a damage type based on your patron.
As to your original point on sorcerer, I think it actually works better delaying til level 3 than warlock does. Since it's inate, I can see that you might start to manifest your basic powers without a whole lot of necessary flavor. You're just getting your base spells; the source doesn't really matter between one sorc and the next. The sorc has a lot more to choose from (and more flexibility) than the warlock does. it's got more spells to choose from, it's got more spell slots to cast them with, and it's got more cantrips to fall back on than the warlock. The warlock /needs/ it's patron flavor up front. for example you strip draconic away from a level 1 sorc, it's still got quite a bit of kit to work with. Strip fiend away from a fiendlock, and it's a bad rogue with a heavy crossbow and no sneak attack or stat bonus on it's damage rolls, plus a whopping 1 spell/rest on a very limited spell list (of which many of the good ones come from the patron)
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
But do you think they will change warlocks to use intelligence by default, or would it be like a new class quality in which it would not have a preset which stat it will use? (Leaving it to the player's choice in the first level of the sorcerer, being able to choose between intelligence, charisma or wisdom, thus being a wild card when it comes to multiclassing with any spellcasting class.)
PS: If it were the player's choice, it could lead to different consequences depending on the statistics, such as a proficiency in tune with what was chosen and other consequences that are glimpsed at certain levels."baby pact" sounds insulting or weird at first..... however the idea that a warlock has a "trial pact" for a minor power trade and then a "main patron pact" really enforces the idea of charisma style casting. You and a patron(or even different patrons) get along and weal and deal for new powers does seem on point for their casting concept.
I could see a fun narrative where you start with a lot of mini pact themes, (summons spells, find familar, unseen servant ect.) and slowly gain bigger magic contracts. However I also see potential idea conflicts in some groups. (where someone says another interpretation is wrong). It could cause further division of concepts similar to how people fight over what is important to a ranger concept.
Conspiracy theory time(please take with a grain of salt):
The big take away for me (from the whole summit) was the borderline insane idea of "onednd" being "5e revised." There is so much going on in that simple concept. wotc took a survey and specifically asked if they thought 5e was holding strong or on its way out.(my words not theirs). my guess is enough people wanted 5e to stay strong but not enough to make it a viable business strategy. so they are making really making "5e Light". a kid and streaming friendly version to hold on to the 5e old base crowd while bringing in new people. that's my idea of their play anyway it could be far off.
However I do not believe the insistence that the Reguar classes are part of the options going forward is a good one. Do you really think dms or players will be happy if a player insists on using PHB rangers or Bards at the same tabel as a one bard. It severely adds complexity and is not a reduction.(which seems to be a main goal).
I think creating a clear division between 5e light and 5e would be better. However I do not really want a light version I just wanted clarity. I enjoy the level of complexity in regular 5e. not too much but not too little. That balance is what made it my favorite system. When i play rules light other systems do it better than "one" seems to.
If they give Warlocks more at 1st level while the warlock is still just digging up secret, arcane lore, and don’t actually acquire patronage until they’ve found enough arcane lore to make a pact at 3rd level, I can see that working quite well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
honestly I think they will clear up the "Pact magic" and regular "spellcasting" slot cross over. meaning they don't support coffee style feature manipulations. That would make the stacking of so many Charisma casters not as big of a deal.
I dont really view it as a warlock without the patron, personally
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I dont think coffee lock is the biggest issue. EB and hexblade are the biggest issue.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I don’t view most characters as fully fledged until they get their subclasses, and that’s all happening at 3rd level in 1DD, so the Warlock will be in the same boat as everyone else. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It doesnt have to be fully fledged, but it does have to have a patron. its one of the few classes that will really feel wrong to me without a patron from level 1, perhaps only
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I get why they're backing away from 1st level subclasses to avoid frontloading too much for dips, but it still just makes no sense for classes where your subclass pick is so intrinsic to the character's origin/identity to not actually make the choice until level 3. Granted, the way I usually hear it you don't get many campaigns starting at levels 1 or 2, so perhaps it won't actually mean that much in practice. Still worried what the "Mages" are going to look like if everyone is using a single spell list and Wizards and Sorcs get the exact same number of spells they prepare in the exact same way.
Well, we have already seen that the spell lists aren't used the exact same way by every class. For example the Bard can only prepare spells from the transmutation, divination, illusion and enchantment schools from Arcane. Rangers do all EXCEPT evocation from primal. It would not be crazy to think Wizards will get the whole Arcane list but Sorcs will be limited in some way, and I am almost counting on Warlocks being priced out of evocation, I would be even less surprised if they are heavy limited to basically have the same list as bards except trading illusion for necromancy with "baby pacts" granting other schools or something. Either way I am sure Sorcs and wizards will prepare the same number of spells from the arcane list, but maybe sorcs may not have access to the whole list. And warlocks are going to be VERY different in their preps.
Warlock should get to choose, which it sounds like they're doing so I'm on board. After all , when it comes to negotiating a favorable contract, both high Int and high Cha are useful.
To be fair, there's nothing stopping you from rolling a die to see what sorcerer subclass you get if you truly want it to be driven by chance or fate, just like you can roll for your stats or your background or your starting gold etc.
Yeah it's probably true that some percentage, maybe even a high percentage of sorcerers have absolutely no say in the subclass they end up with in-universe, but D&D is still a game, and if it's a choice between "realism" or fun gameplay for me then gameplay is going to win every single time.
Wizards and Sorcerers had the same spell list for most of D&D's history so I don't think that's a big deal. Rather I think the bigger problem will be the spellbook, if Sorcerers can prep from the whole Arcane list and Wizards can only prep what they've got in their book then that's going to be a problem. But I can't think of how they'd restrict sorcerers that people would be fine with either.
I do understand them wanting to dump spontaneous casters from tbhe game as it's way too punishing for new players while every experienced player ends up with really samey builds. So I guess we'll have to see what they come up with. Sorcerer is my favorite full caster so I'm pretty eager to see it.
I don't think you are going to need to worry about the spell book thing. We will see, but I have been getting the vibe that the spell book will be a different mechanic and the wizard will be able to prep from the whole list and the book will just be for rituals or a flavor thing.
I kinda feel that way about Clerics.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I disagree, to a point, with both of you. I think warlock will be fine with subclass at 3rd same with sorcerer. It will probably require slight tweaking of the class description.
They could be researching their arcane lore or delving into the deep dark secrets of the weave, or some such, and gain their spellcasting like they do now. Even start learning invocation until they catch the interest of a powerful entity. But they will have some power levels 1-2. Maybe the Boon since it isn’t tied to an actual patron, similar to the Cleric’s Orders.
And as far as clerics, I think they are fine as is. They still derive their power from a deity (or whatever) and it isn’t until 3rd level that their “source” of their power is “granted” to them as their domain.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Disagree with this, they are seekers of arcane knowledge. Finding enough arcane knowledge to be level 1-2 without a patron seems a pretty easy task.
yeah, I agree with you there to an extent. They need a god, but not necessarily their subclass. I feel the patron is as important to a warlock as the god is to the priest.
A warlock picking up knowledge without a patron, imo, is just a wizard.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That sounds terrible to me. The only people who should have access to the entire list are those who have their powers handed to them from a god or something. The Bard should not know every spell, the sorcerer shouldn't, none of the arcane casters should. It is such terrible world building in the search of unifying everything.
They should have instead expanded the spell book concept to the other arcane casters with maybe the sorcerer as the lone exception and still using a known spell system but with enough known it was not nearly as punishing.
Well think about it. In the lore they spend time delving for secret arcane knowledge before making a pact, so why not make that 1st & 2nd level?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
from the class description:
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being.
Seems definitive to me.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha