I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
Not really a warlock using a sword isn't wanting yo give up spell casting as a focus they are giving up eldritch blast as their primary DPS. They still very much need the charisma just as much as a blasting warlock for their spell casting as a 9 spell level caster. It was terrible design to not include it in the core pact, though I'd also include the 2nd attack in the core pact. Well honestly I'd of preferred it was just a different manifestation of eldritch blast.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
With how many people tend to completely ignore their patron and just treat it as a source of power with no real relationship whatsoever my guess is that you’re likely in the minority on that score.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
With how many people tend to completely ignore their patron and just treat it as a source of power with no real relationship whatsoever my guess is that you’re likely in the minority on that score.
I stand with crzyhawk on this. We probably are in the minority. But, speaking for myself - you wouldn't hand waive away a sentient sword needing you to kill one creature a day for its benefit or X happens would you? but people all the time hand wave away a warlock's pact with their patron, or a cleric with their deity, or a Paladin following their tenets or becoming an oathbreaker? Yes, it's *potentially* more work for the DM. But it also is part of the character and the story. If I wanted to just be uber powerful all the time, and always do whatever, there are better/easier TTRPG games and systems that can accomplish that. --- (looking at you savage worlds model and your "exploding" dice and your "wild dice")
Like, it specifically states warlocks power comes from their patron and their pact.
Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular.
without the patron and their pact - they are a D8, Light armor, and Simple weapon, Martial with wisdom and charisma saves. with no class skills/spells/abilities... except:
Eldritch Invocations
In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed Eldritch Invocations, fragments of forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.
Which to me, sounds like, just a "mildly better" version of a commoner.
Pact Magic
Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.
Otherworldly Patron
At 1st level, you have struck a bargain with an otherworldly being of your choice. Your choice grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level.
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being.
Seems definitive to me.
You don’t expect that to change in ‘24 to suit whatever the class looks like then?
No. Without the patron, there's no point to a warlock. A wizard gains their power through arcane study. A sorcerer gets their power innately; they are born with it. The warlock serves a niche where the arcane knowledge is earned through a bargain. Take away the need for that other worldly being, and it's got no reason to exist other than being a bundle of mechanics.
That said, with them saying that they intend this to be a continuation of 5e (5.5 without calling it 5.5), I would expect the general class themes to remain constant. That, I will believe they change when they give me a reason to believe it will be changed.
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 guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
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.
While the flavor text for warlock describes a pact, it's purely a roleplaying thing -- the character has no obligation to perform any actions in support of their pact (this is the same as a cleric's religion and a paladin's oath).
The idea that a level 1 warlock knows absolutely everything there is to know about their pact - exactly who their patron is, the exact and precise terms of their pact, the precise nature of the power they bargained with, and exactly what they can expect from that pact - seems as far fetched to me as "you made a bargain you didn't understand well at first level and it takes you a couple of levels to figure out the gist of it."
The idea that a level 1 warlock knows absolutely everything there is to know about their pact - exactly who their patron is, the exact and precise terms of their pact, the precise nature of the power they bargained with, and exactly what they can expect from that pact - seems as far fetched to me as "you made a bargain you didn't understand well at first level and it takes you a couple of levels to figure out the gist of it."
there are so many flavors of accepting without reading all the conditions... some harmless light chanting from books mom wouldn't approve of so we don't tell her, feeling more clever than ancient fey/devils/squid-things, nothing left to lose, trusting a unicorn you just met to have your best interests in mind, dialing every number in the far realms phone book and being surprised when something rings you back breathing extra heavily into your ear, or the ole rescued from drowning/falling/bleeding/etc sign here please.
While the flavor text for warlock describes a pact, it's purely a roleplaying thing -- the character has no obligation to perform any actions in support of their pact (this is the same as a cleric's religion and a paladin's oath).
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
While the flavor text for warlock describes a pact, it's purely a roleplaying thing -- the character has no obligation to perform any actions in support of their pact (this is the same as a cleric's religion and a paladin's oath).
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
No there isn't. There's a bad subclass in the DMG with some vague guidance on "if your paladin breaks their oath you might replace their subclass with Oathbreaker". There's no mechanical system for doing so beyond DM fiat.
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
Really? Point me to the text that allows the DM to tell the player "You aren't playing your oath, so I'm going to require you to change it". Oathbreaker paladin does exist (and has a really dumb mechanic where aura of hate doesn't bother checking whether the creature is an ally of the paladin, so it can boost your enemies), but there's no mechanic for actually changing oath.
So the UA should deal with these cases in the different classes? Create a mechanic and maybe one of the 4 subclasses, out of many classes, are to correctly kill the fallen?or in future updates of the master's manual.
That they break it does not mean that they are bad or only for NPCs, for example a paladin could break his oath because he realized that the person he serves is a despotic tyrant that must be overthrown, or a sorcerer who reveals himself to the one who offered him his first pact, perhaps looking for a being more akin to what he is willing to do to combat his former master, or a priest (or a Druid because the ancient gods can actively go to destroy all civilization) who reveals himself to his current god for feeling manipulated and not agreeing with his methods, using against him part of what he knows about it to hinder his plans.
No there isn't. There's a bad subclass in the DMG with some vague guidance on "if your paladin breaks their oath you might replace their subclass with Oathbreaker". There's no mechanical system for doing so beyond DM fiat.
I'd disagree with the 'bad' part. It's actually a really strong subclass, other than the glitch where aura of hate can buff your enemies.
While the flavor text for warlock describes a pact, it's purely a roleplaying thing -- the character has no obligation to perform any actions in support of their pact (this is the same as a cleric's religion and a paladin's oath).
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
No there isn't. There's a bad subclass in the DMG with some vague guidance on "if your paladin breaks their oath you might replace their subclass with Oathbreaker". There's no mechanical system for doing so beyond DM fiat.
There's as much of a mechanical system for it as there is for the majority similar things in 5e.
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
Really? Point me to the text that allows the DM to tell the player "You aren't playing your oath, so I'm going to require you to change it". Oathbreaker paladin does exist (and has a really dumb mechanic where aura of hate doesn't bother checking whether the creature is an ally of the paladin, so it can boost your enemies), but there's no mechanic for actually changing oath.
For humor, because I take a little issue with the phrasing of "allows the DM", anyone would only need to point you to Rule 0. That out of the way though, I point you toward the PHB, top of the section on Sacred Oaths, under Breaking your Oath. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/paladin#SacredOaths
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
This is a mechanic
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
While the flavor text for warlock describes a pact, it's purely a roleplaying thing -- the character has no obligation to perform any actions in support of their pact (this is the same as a cleric's religion and a paladin's oath).
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
No there isn't. There's a bad subclass in the DMG with some vague guidance on "if your paladin breaks their oath you might replace their subclass with Oathbreaker". There's no mechanical system for doing so beyond DM fiat.
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
Really? Point me to the text that allows the DM to tell the player "You aren't playing your oath, so I'm going to require you to change it". Oathbreaker paladin does exist (and has a really dumb mechanic where aura of hate doesn't bother checking whether the creature is an ally of the paladin, so it can boost your enemies), but there's no mechanic for actually changing oath.
Now, to the bolded part for "actually changing oath":
Nobody is talking about changing oaths. You have literally just created a topic to get mad about to try and talk about.
While the flavor text for warlock describes a pact, it's purely a roleplaying thing -- the character has no obligation to perform any actions in support of their pact (this is the same as a cleric's religion and a paladin's oath).
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
Is my exact quote: show me in my quote right here where I said "changing their oath"
Now, now that you guys with your pitchforks and your extreme views for how you like to play and run campaigns have said your piece. I REITERATE:
There's literally a mechanic built in for this: You can CHOOSE to NOT FOLLOW IT, (dm discretion), but RAW, this is a thing. and exists. and has an ACTUAL MECHANIC built in for it.
[REDACTED] After all, what counts as "not following your oath"? How does a DM decide a paladin has officially, mechanically forsaken their oath? There's a "mechanic", in the form of a bad subclass, for Oathbreakers, but the Oath itself and whether or not the dingdong is following their oath are purely subjective, soft/fluff Roleplaying Pieces. There's no mechanical structure for it.
Given that the argument is that warlocks, sorcerers, and clerics cannot possibly not have access to their subclass features rgith from level 1 "BECAUSE THEY NEED THE MECHANIC THAT DEFINES THEIR WHOLE THING RIGHT AWAY!!1!", determining what is and is not mechanically enforced is relevant. The warlock's patron demanding constant ongoing service is not mechanically enforced - hell, my own warlock I'm playing right now gained her powers as a reward for a significant service she performed before ever even being a warlock and has no further obligations to her patron. Sorcerers do not require differentiated abilities unique to their origin for their origin to be relevant. Clerics do not require specific domain powers for their origin to be relevant. Every class in the game can wait until third level to gain their subclass abilities without it breaking stories.
Subclasses being more systematically and rigorously designed is better for D&D as a whole, and if you all want one-level dips to stop being a thing - which you all very clearly do - then Wizards has to make the starter level for classes with typically overloaded first levels such as warlock or cleric less attractive. Pushing subclass to third level accomplishes this without significant or meaningful harm to mono-class characters.
Or, to put it in a short, pithy, Internet-relevant manner: suck it up and deal, because the change makes the game better more than it makes the game worse and your stories aren't the only stories the developers need to cater to.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
few people do full contracts in the business world without "testing" the other party's services first. a paladin might get benefits for just being good and dedicated to paladin work. that would help the deity even if it isn't their specialty but help its ally deities. then when the paladin deepens their oath (by leveling up)or takes a second one(still leveling up just a different flavor), The deity and/or its allies would trust the paladin with more powers. taking those powers away are really worldbuilding specific and forgottenrelms is at least vague. players and dms can decide what narrative fits their table and what options are available . (switching deities, switching to oathbreaker, in game narrative punishments etc..) some options are called out in the book as possibilities but others are not.
warlocks are the same way but a little more nefarious. kind of like a drug dealer or gang member. small easy benefits at first... That make you want more and so your willing to do more. if anything its kind of an odd concept to have the full thing laid out in the beginning. like i indicated before most familiars are pacts IMO. You trade a spell slot for a servant that disappears when it zeros out. the difference with a patron is you are the one agreeing to service for the price of powers. you start low with just eldritch blast and a few invocations. as you get more tailored gifts and powers the patron is investing more but might require more. IF you decide not to level up warlock your deal isn't invalid you just never progressed with a trade off for the patron to give you new features.
anyway this is overthinking it and kind of the wrong thread because we are moving further away from summit content. There are plenty of other paladin and warlock specific threads. but I will say I never wanted to play a warlock until the idea about the "baby pact" really opened the possibility of a group of patrons. However undermining other class options and playstyles makes me want to avoid any "revised-one-5eLight" content all together.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not really a warlock using a sword isn't wanting yo give up spell casting as a focus they are giving up eldritch blast as their primary DPS. They still very much need the charisma just as much as a blasting warlock for their spell casting as a 9 spell level caster. It was terrible design to not include it in the core pact, though I'd also include the 2nd attack in the core pact. Well honestly I'd of preferred it was just a different manifestation of eldritch blast.
With how many people tend to completely ignore their patron and just treat it as a source of power with no real relationship whatsoever my guess is that you’re likely in the minority on that score.
I stand with crzyhawk on this. We probably are in the minority. But, speaking for myself - you wouldn't hand waive away a sentient sword needing you to kill one creature a day for its benefit or X happens would you? but people all the time hand wave away a warlock's pact with their patron, or a cleric with their deity, or a Paladin following their tenets or becoming an oathbreaker? Yes, it's *potentially* more work for the DM. But it also is part of the character and the story. If I wanted to just be uber powerful all the time, and always do whatever, there are better/easier TTRPG games and systems that can accomplish that. --- (looking at you savage worlds model and your "exploding" dice and your "wild dice")
Like, it specifically states warlocks power comes from their patron and their pact.
without the patron and their pact - they are a D8, Light armor, and Simple weapon, Martial with wisdom and charisma saves. with no class skills/spells/abilities... except:
Which to me, sounds like, just a "mildly better" version of a commoner.
🤷♂️
Blank
No. Without the patron, there's no point to a warlock. A wizard gains their power through arcane study. A sorcerer gets their power innately; they are born with it. The warlock serves a niche where the arcane knowledge is earned through a bargain. Take away the need for that other worldly being, and it's got no reason to exist other than being a bundle of mechanics.
That said, with them saying that they intend this to be a continuation of 5e (5.5 without calling it 5.5), I would expect the general class themes to remain constant. That, I will believe they change when they give me a reason to believe it will be changed.
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 agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
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
While the flavor text for warlock describes a pact, it's purely a roleplaying thing -- the character has no obligation to perform any actions in support of their pact (this is the same as a cleric's religion and a paladin's oath).
The idea that a level 1 warlock knows absolutely everything there is to know about their pact - exactly who their patron is, the exact and precise terms of their pact, the precise nature of the power they bargained with, and exactly what they can expect from that pact - seems as far fetched to me as "you made a bargain you didn't understand well at first level and it takes you a couple of levels to figure out the gist of it."
Please do not contact or message me.
there are so many flavors of accepting without reading all the conditions... some harmless light chanting from books mom wouldn't approve of so we don't tell her, feeling more clever than ancient fey/devils/squid-things, nothing left to lose, trusting a unicorn you just met to have your best interests in mind, dialing every number in the far realms phone book and being surprised when something rings you back breathing extra heavily into your ear, or the ole rescued from drowning/falling/bleeding/etc sign here please.
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!
There's a literal mechanic in place for Paladin's who do not follow their Oaths...
Blank
No there isn't. There's a bad subclass in the DMG with some vague guidance on "if your paladin breaks their oath you might replace their subclass with Oathbreaker". There's no mechanical system for doing so beyond DM fiat.
Please do not contact or message me.
Really? Point me to the text that allows the DM to tell the player "You aren't playing your oath, so I'm going to require you to change it". Oathbreaker paladin does exist (and has a really dumb mechanic where aura of hate doesn't bother checking whether the creature is an ally of the paladin, so it can boost your enemies), but there's no mechanic for actually changing oath.
So the UA should deal with these cases in the different classes? Create a mechanic and maybe one of the 4 subclasses, out of many classes, are to correctly kill the fallen?
or in future updates of the master's manual.That they break it does not mean that they are bad or only for NPCs, for example a paladin could break his oath because he realized that the person he serves is a despotic tyrant that must be overthrown, or a sorcerer who reveals himself to the one who offered him his first pact, perhaps looking for a being more akin to what he is willing to do to combat his former master, or a priest (or a Druid because the ancient gods can actively go to destroy all civilization) who reveals himself to his current god for feeling manipulated and not agreeing with his methods, using against him part of what he knows about it to hinder his plans.
I'd disagree with the 'bad' part. It's actually a really strong subclass, other than the glitch where aura of hate can buff your enemies.
There's as much of a mechanical system for it as there is for the majority similar things in 5e.
For humor, because I take a little issue with the phrasing of "allows the DM", anyone would only need to point you to Rule 0. That out of the way though, I point you toward the PHB, top of the section on Sacred Oaths, under Breaking your Oath.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/paladin#SacredOaths
This is a mechanic
This is a mechanic...
I mean...
Now, to the bolded part for "actually changing oath":
Nobody is talking about changing oaths. You have literally just created a topic to get mad about to try and talk about.
Is my exact quote: show me in my quote right here where I said "changing their oath"
Now, now that you guys with your pitchforks and your extreme views for how you like to play and run campaigns have said your piece. I REITERATE:
There's literally a mechanic built in for this: You can CHOOSE to NOT FOLLOW IT, (dm discretion), but RAW, this is a thing. and exists. and has an ACTUAL MECHANIC built in for it.
[REDACTED]
Blank
Sigh.
[REDACTED] After all, what counts as "not following your oath"? How does a DM decide a paladin has officially, mechanically forsaken their oath? There's a "mechanic", in the form of a bad subclass, for Oathbreakers, but the Oath itself and whether or not the dingdong is following their oath are purely subjective, soft/fluff Roleplaying Pieces. There's no mechanical structure for it.
Given that the argument is that warlocks, sorcerers, and clerics cannot possibly not have access to their subclass features rgith from level 1 "BECAUSE THEY NEED THE MECHANIC THAT DEFINES THEIR WHOLE THING RIGHT AWAY!!1!", determining what is and is not mechanically enforced is relevant. The warlock's patron demanding constant ongoing service is not mechanically enforced - hell, my own warlock I'm playing right now gained her powers as a reward for a significant service she performed before ever even being a warlock and has no further obligations to her patron. Sorcerers do not require differentiated abilities unique to their origin for their origin to be relevant. Clerics do not require specific domain powers for their origin to be relevant. Every class in the game can wait until third level to gain their subclass abilities without it breaking stories.
Subclasses being more systematically and rigorously designed is better for D&D as a whole, and if you all want one-level dips to stop being a thing - which you all very clearly do - then Wizards has to make the starter level for classes with typically overloaded first levels such as warlock or cleric less attractive. Pushing subclass to third level accomplishes this without significant or meaningful harm to mono-class characters.
Or, to put it in a short, pithy, Internet-relevant manner: suck it up and deal, because the change makes the game better more than it makes the game worse and your stories aren't the only stories the developers need to cater to.
Please do not contact or message me.
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
few people do full contracts in the business world without "testing" the other party's services first. a paladin might get benefits for just being good and dedicated to paladin work. that would help the deity even if it isn't their specialty but help its ally deities. then when the paladin deepens their oath (by leveling up)or takes a second one(still leveling up just a different flavor), The deity and/or its allies would trust the paladin with more powers. taking those powers away are really worldbuilding specific and forgottenrelms is at least vague. players and dms can decide what narrative fits their table and what options are available . (switching deities, switching to oathbreaker, in game narrative punishments etc..) some options are called out in the book as possibilities but others are not.
warlocks are the same way but a little more nefarious. kind of like a drug dealer or gang member. small easy benefits at first... That make you want more and so your willing to do more. if anything its kind of an odd concept to have the full thing laid out in the beginning. like i indicated before most familiars are pacts IMO. You trade a spell slot for a servant that disappears when it zeros out. the difference with a patron is you are the one agreeing to service for the price of powers. you start low with just eldritch blast and a few invocations. as you get more tailored gifts and powers the patron is investing more but might require more. IF you decide not to level up warlock your deal isn't invalid you just never progressed with a trade off for the patron to give you new features.
anyway this is overthinking it and kind of the wrong thread because we are moving further away from summit content. There are plenty of other paladin and warlock specific threads. but I will say I never wanted to play a warlock until the idea about the "baby pact" really opened the possibility of a group of patrons. However undermining other class options and playstyles makes me want to avoid any "revised-one-5eLight" content all together.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.