So, I guess Dispel Magic will knock out a Warlock's Pact of the Blade (or whatever) now?
You want to use a 1A 3rd level spell to get rid of a Cantrip that I can re-cast next turn? I'll take that trade.
But, the same question applies to anti-magic field, etc.
If we're high enough level to be worrying about anti-magic field, then I've probably used the spell for a bond to a magic weapon and not a conjured weapon. So I'm not losing my weapon, just the bond. That can make some things less ideal, sure (mainly in the form of changing my weapon stat from my casting stat to STR or DEX)... but everyone is going to be having some major pain with an anti-magic field. Like all of the party casters, not just the pact of the blade warlock.
And Anti-Magic fields are rare, typically high level, and especially designed to be huge impediments to casters (again, it's a problem for all casters, not just pact of the blade warlocks). That doesn't seem like a reason to completely derail the change, because an edge case that's supposed to cause a dramatic problem ... causes a dramatic problem.
So, I guess Dispel Magic will knock out a Warlock's Pact of the Blade (or whatever) now?
dispel magic would already remove your Armor of Agathys and mirror image, so why not a conjured weapon? also, seems like you'd still be holding a bonded magic weapon (only minus the bond).
You would also lose your ability to fight with you caster stat and your proficiency with the weapon.
Until next turn. Meanwhile, you lost a limited resource in order to counter an unlimited resource.
Yup - my bad on that - I corrected myself above. I thought Pact Weapon was an hour like the other two.
That doesn't mean it's a bad thing to move character mechanics toward "all magical abilities use spell mechanics."
Only if you view homogeneity as a positive regardless of context
Saying it "makes things simpler" -- even if I granted it were true, which I don't -- isn't the same as saying it makes things better. No one's yet offered an explanation for how it actually makes things better
Homogeneity of mechanics (as in "Unified Mechanics") is a positive thing, yes. (Homogeneity of flavor/fluff is entirely different) And simplicity (when it follows the _actual_ principles of minimalism) is better than needless complexity. And the complexity they're reducing is definitely not needed.
Still no explanations, only assertions
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't see how turning class features into spells simplifies things. Of all the things people have talked about wanting to revise or overhaul in 5E, I don't recall the mechanism of activating class abilities being one that was mentioned frequently, if at all. But whereas before class abilities were things you just got, sometimes with the ability to gain extra uses at the cost of a spell slot, now Sorcerers HAVE to use their spell slots for their 5th-, 7th-, and 9th-level abilities. The Draconic Sorcerer's two higher-level abilities are merely buffs to spells that they still have to cast with spell slots. The Ranger's new Favored Enemy is reduced to "Hunter's Mark works a little better for you, but you still have to spend your precious few spell slots to use it". The Wizard has to spend a 3rd-level spell slot to swap out one of their prepared spells for another one. They have to spend a 4th-level spell slot to modify a spell that they then have to use ANOTHER spell slot to cast later. Even a VERY limited number of free uses per day(or even just one), with the ability to expend spell slots for additional uses would be a big improvement. I am very firmly opposed to class features that require the use of spell slots. If you can't even do it once a day for free, I'm voting it LOW on the survey.
The Wizard has to spend a 3rd-level spell slot to swap out one of their prepared spells for another one. They have to spend a 4th-level spell slot to modify a spell that they then have to use ANOTHER spell slot to cast later. Even a VERY limited number of free uses per day(or even just one), with the ability to expend spell slots for additional uses would be a big improvement. I am very firmly opposed to class features that require the use of spell slots. If you can't even do it once a day for free, I'm voting it LOW on the survey.
Memorize, Modify, and Scribe are all Rituals, which means the Wizard can do them without a spell slot. It just takes 10 minutes, so ... re-memorizing a spell only costs a spell slot if you do it in combat. And even then, you aren't going to want to do it in combat, because it takes a full minute even without it being a Ritual. So, basically, it doesn't cost you a spell slot. And for Wizards, they don't even have to prepare Rituals... so it doesn't cost the Wizard anything other than time.
Create _does_ cost a slot .. but, again it's not really something you're going to want to do in combat: you have to concentrate on Create Spell for an hour. And its only purpose is not combat utility, but making the modified spell a permanent part of your library. (my only change to its write-up would be to make a casting time of 1 hour instead of a concentration for an hour, and make it a Ritual, but otherwise I see no problem with it)
While I can kind of see the points for and against this change I feel like it makes more sense for the sorcerer than for warlock or wizard.
And the thing is, they've kind of already given themselves a better way to do this by formalising actions as Magic; make the features magic actions/bonus actions and then update relevant spells/features to apply to this (e.g- can counterspell Magic actions, magic actions can have a specified level to make that harder to do).
Pact boons as cantrips just feels especially weird mechanically, and in terms of organisation all they have to do is shove them at the end like invocations if they don't want to clutter the main page.
Wizard's create/memorize/modify/scribe spells should IMO just be class features. Only memorize and modify really justify a spell slot to make them faster, the other two should just be limited in how often you can do them per day so it's a gradual process.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That’s so boring. As is there’s really not much to actually do regarding PC development after you pick a subclass other than track the scant few resources they get. This just makes it even more samesame. Why should “everything” a caster does be shoehorned into the Cast a Spell action?!? That’s like saying “everything” I fighter does has to involve the Attack action. It’s just ridiculous. I truly wish they had gone the opposite direction and actually converted eldritch blast, hex, hunter’s mark, chaos bolt, and find familiar into actual class features.
In that case, what is it that they do? Is Eldritch Blast magical? Yes. But if it's not a spell, how does it even work? What differentiates it from spells? If Find Familiar is not a ritual and not magical, then what the hell is it? Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
Class features as spells just feels extraordinarily janky to me. It's the kind of thing I remember seeing back when I dabbled in modding for Diablo 2. Doing it here in a ttrpg feels like a workaround blindly implemented when there wasn't even a problem.
Having to flip pages to see what your new feature-that-is-a-spell even does is dumb.
In that case, what is it that they do? Is Eldritch Blast magical? Yes. But if it's not a spell, how does it even work? What differentiates it from spells? If Find Familiar is not a ritual and not magical, then what the hell is it? Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
Wizards have actually already set themselves up to create non-spell magic though by classifying various new rules as "Magic" actions, so they could easily just have find familiar/summon familiar/whatever be a Magic action, and then specify in things like antimagic field, counterspell etc. (and/or a box aside around Magic actions) that anything that suppresses/blocks spells also does the same for magic actions (in the case of updated counterspell etc. it just needs to work on magic actions, since spells are magic actions too).
There's no reason they can't have levelled magic actions for the purpose of counterspell difficulty, and they could also broaden concentration to be a possible requirement for a magic action (not just spells), as this would be worth doing for the various effects we've seen before that occupy concentration but aren't traditional spells.
I'm undecided personally on eldritch blast specifically, but for me that's because I'd rather see it become a weaker Arcane list cantrip but with warlocks able to use invocations to boost it back up to previous levels if eldritch blaster is what you're trying to build. But this comes from a long-standing gripe of mine which is that you don't often see warlocks using other ranged cantrips much, because none of the invocations interact with anything but eldritch blast (and 5e hex works best on it due to the multiple beams). But with the UA version of hex that's no longer the case, and it's a more obvious core feature to me than eldritch blast because it can work with basically anything that hits – technically they could even re-word to work with anything that deals damage, since it only affects the one target anyway.
Now whether hex should be a class feature or not… I'm actually a bit undecided on that too, I think it could be and probably should be, but it wouldn't make a big difference. It's the pact boons that bother me more; these should just be class feature options as before, each giving you magic action(s) to handle them. Pact of the Chain in particular needs to be, so they can move the per-patron familiars out to sub-classes, it's silly for them to be all bundled up in a weird spell plus an eldritch invocation; just have each patron tell me what my familiar is (or can be), and what its special feature is if I take Favor of the Chain Master. Job done.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In that case, what is it that they do? Is Eldritch Blast magical? Yes. But if it's not a spell, how does it even work? What differentiates it from spells? If Find Familiar is not a ritual and not magical, then what the hell is it? Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
Wizards have actually already set themselves up to create non-spell magic though by classifying various new rules as "Magic" actions, so they could easily just have find familiar/summon familiar/whatever be a Magic action, and then specify in things like antimagic field, counterspell etc. (and/or a box aside around Magic actions) that anything that suppresses/blocks spells also does the same for magic actions (in the case of updated counterspell etc. it just needs to work on magic actions, since spells are magic actions too).
There's no reason they can't have levelled magic actions for the purpose of counterspell difficulty, and they could also broaden concentration to be a possible requirement for a magic action (not just spells), as this would be worth doing for the various effects we've seen before that occupy concentration but aren't traditional spells.
I'm undecided personally on eldritch blast specifically, but for me that's because I'd rather see it become a weaker Arcane list cantrip but with warlocks able to use invocations to boost it back up to previous levels if eldritch blaster is what you're trying to build. But this comes from a long-standing gripe of mine which is that you don't often see warlocks using other ranged cantrips much, because none of the invocations interact with anything but eldritch blast (and 5e hex works best on it due to the multiple beams). But with the UA version of hex that's no longer the case, and it's a more obvious core feature to me than eldritch blast because it can work with basically anything that hits – technically they could even re-word to work with anything that deals damage, since it only affects the one target anyway.
Now whether hex should be a class feature or not… I'm actually a bit undecided on that too, I think it could be and probably should be, but it wouldn't make a big difference. It's the pact boons that bother me more; these should just be class feature options as before, each giving you magic action(s) to handle them. Pact of the Chain in particular needs to be, so they can move the per-patron familiars out to sub-classes, it's silly for them to be all bundled up in a weird spell plus an eldritch invocation; just have each patron tell me what my familiar is (or can be), and what its special feature is if I take Favor of the Chain Master. Job done.
I had this idea for a homebrew invocation to replace agonizing blast. It would let you choose a damage type, and you could add your cha mod to the one damage roll of a cantrip that dealt that damage type.
Class features as spells just feels extraordinarily janky to me. It's the kind of thing I remember seeing back when I dabbled in modding for Diablo 2. Doing it here in a ttrpg feels like a workaround blindly implemented when there wasn't even a problem.
Having to flip pages to see what your new feature-that-is-a-spell even does is dumb.
You have to flip those pages anyway (or use the search engine, depending on how you access your books) though. Like, you're not saving the sorcerer or wizard any time by not sending them to the spell chapter when they level up due to their feature - they need to go there regardless.
Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
No, magic is used by mortals through manipulating the Weave. Spells are but one way to do that
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In that case, what is it that they do? Is Eldritch Blast magical? Yes. But if it's not a spell, how does it even work? What differentiates it from spells? If Find Familiar is not a ritual and not magical, then what the hell is it? Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
Wizards have actually already set themselves up to create non-spell magic though by classifying various new rules as "Magic" actions, so they could easily just have find familiar/summon familiar/whatever be a Magic action, and then specify in things like antimagic field, counterspell etc. (and/or a box aside around Magic actions) that anything that suppresses/blocks spells also does the same for magic actions (in the case of updated counterspell etc. it just needs to work on magic actions, since spells are magic actions too).
There's no reason they can't have levelled magic actions for the purpose of counterspell difficulty, and they could also broaden concentration to be a possible requirement for a magic action (not just spells), as this would be worth doing for the various effects we've seen before that occupy concentration but aren't traditional spells.
I'm undecided personally on eldritch blast specifically, but for me that's because I'd rather see it become a weaker Arcane list cantrip but with warlocks able to use invocations to boost it back up to previous levels if eldritch blaster is what you're trying to build. But this comes from a long-standing gripe of mine which is that you don't often see warlocks using other ranged cantrips much, because none of the invocations interact with anything but eldritch blast (and 5e hex works best on it due to the multiple beams). But with the UA version of hex that's no longer the case, and it's a more obvious core feature to me than eldritch blast because it can work with basically anything that hits – technically they could even re-word to work with anything that deals damage, since it only affects the one target anyway.
Now whether hex should be a class feature or not… I'm actually a bit undecided on that too, I think it could be and probably should be, but it wouldn't make a big difference. It's the pact boons that bother me more; these should just be class feature options as before, each giving you magic action(s) to handle them. Pact of the Chain in particular needs to be, so they can move the per-patron familiars out to sub-classes, it's silly for them to be all bundled up in a weird spell plus an eldritch invocation; just have each patron tell me what my familiar is (or can be), and what its special feature is if I take Favor of the Chain Master. Job done.
I think you're right, Magic action was a more elegant solution. I doubt they'll turn features like druids' shapeshifting into spells. Some features, like Eldritch Blast or sorcerer's stuff, could be spells, but Scribe/Modify/Create Spell, or warlock pact "cantrips" could just as well be Magic actions, since they are outside spell slot economy or combat anyway.
Why are channel nature and channel Divinity not spells?
I think mostly because they overtly consume a resource that is not a spell slot.
While that is mostly/technically true, it's also a resource that can be exchanged for spell slots. Which means you can (_sort_of_) give them an exchange rate, and value, relative to spell slots. So, with a little reworking, you _could_ just make them spell slot driven... and then just make them spells.
As is, it's not a perfect conversion, but it wouldn't take much to do it that way. Not much more of a radical change than what we're already seeing in OneD&D.
Why are channel nature and channel Divinity not spells?
I think mostly because they overtly consume a resource that is not a spell slot.
While that is mostly/technically true, it's also a resource that can be exchanged for spell slots. Which means you can (_sort_of_) give them an exchange rate, and value, relative to spell slots. So, with a little reworking, you _could_ just make them spell slot driven... and then just make them spells.
As is, it's not a perfect conversion, but it wouldn't take much to do it that way. Not much more of a radical change than what we're already seeing in OneD&D.
Making them spell slot driven really wouldn't work, they still need a resource to burn but would be so much more valuable for those spell slots that it would mean everybody would save those slots for the spells, the only way to balance it would be to then nerf them as spells, as which point you're nerfing the classes themselves, which now are actually missing class features. The end result is you either destroy class identity (which has been a big issue for Paladin in the Druid/Paladin UA) or you stop them using spell slots for anything else. Overall, Paladin already exhausts it's spell slots for smites, making spell slots more valuable or putting in more competition for them only harms Paladin.
Most of the features turned into spells, actually make sense, like Warlocks cantrips, they do not use spell slots either and are magical actions. Magical actions without a resource cost are easily converted into cantrips.
Why are channel nature and channel Divinity not spells?
I think mostly because they overtly consume a resource that is not a spell slot.
While that is mostly/technically true, it's also a resource that can be exchanged for spell slots. Which means you can (_sort_of_) give them an exchange rate, and value, relative to spell slots. So, with a little reworking, you _could_ just make them spell slot driven... and then just make them spells.
As is, it's not a perfect conversion, but it wouldn't take much to do it that way. Not much more of a radical change than what we're already seeing in OneD&D.
Making them spell slot driven really wouldn't work, they still need a resource to burn but would be so much more valuable for those spell slots that it would mean everybody would save those slots for the spells, the only way to balance it would be to then nerf them as spells, as which point you're nerfing the classes themselves, which now are actually missing class features. The end result is you either destroy class identity (which has been a big issue for Paladin in the Druid/Paladin UA) or you stop them using spell slots for anything else. Overall, Paladin already exhausts it's spell slots for smites, making spell slots more valuable or putting in more competition for them only harms Paladin.
None of that matches my experience. My Clerics rarely use their Channel Divinity often enough to matter, so having the extra flexibility to Channel Divinity or cast spells, via the Tasha option to convert CD to spell slots, was a significant win. If you remove that cost (having to actually spend the action economy to convert your CD to spell slots), it becomes an even bigger win. With "Turn Undead" it's because the ability is so situational that it's not always even relevant, much less useful. With Domain specific CD, like War God's Blessing, it's more about "saving it for the right time", which might never arrive. With something like War God's Blessing is a spell, I have more flexibility about when to use it and how often. With something like Turn Undead, the underlying resource will never go un-used, even if the specific ability never gets used.
A 1st or 2nd level spell for "Turn Undead", maybe that is always prepared, and that scales with spell slot, would be much more practical to my Clerics than having a feature they rarely, if ever, use. Change CD to _always_ just grant an extra spell slot at certain levels, and then replace the function of CD to be a spell. Make it work like the Warlock's sub-type specific spells (where Pact Weapon isn't even available to all Warlocks, just Pact of the Blade Warlocks) : all Clerics get the "Turn Undead" spell, but only War Domain Clerics get the "War God's Blessing" spell, and so on for each Domain.
My Paladins? They already conserve their spell slots to smite at the right time instead having an itchy trigger about it. The thing you're saying wouldn't change their behavior at all. In fact, having CD just be a bonus spell slot might get them to do spells MORE often because they worry ever so slightly less about running out of spell slots.
(which has been a big issue for Paladin in the Druid/Paladin UA)
I also wanted to come back to this specifically. Nothing about the OneD&D, compared to 5e, has robbed the Paladin of their identity. Can Clerics do Smite Spells now? Sure. Can they do them with absolutely no action cost, multiple times per round? No. (all assuming they have enough slots) A Paladin can Smite during an Attack of Opportunity reaction, a Cleric can't. A Paladin can Smite in attack one, Smite in attack two, Smite in a Bonus Attack, AND Smite in an Attack of Opportunity. A Cleric can only ever do it once per turn because Smite spells (in OneD&D) burn your Reaction.
And really, Divine Smite, side protection benefits (Auras in 5e), and their Oath is what drives the Paladin's role and identity. It always has been. Not the Smite spells.
They didn't suffer when Warlocks got a little bit of a Smite ability. They didn't suffer when other classes got a bonus damage once per turn (Blessed Strikes, the various bonus damages that some Ranger subclasses get, etc.). A Paladin's identity is as strong and in-tact as it was in 1e and 3e.
Their Identity didn't suffer when their Steed ability became a spell. Their Identity didn't suffer when their Holy Sword ability got folded into Channel Divinity. Their Identity didn't suffer due to Eldritch Smite. Their Identity didn't suffer when Rangers got "Searing Smite" in Tasha's Cauldron. Their Identity hasn't suffered even slightly with the unification of Cleric and Paladin spell lists into Divine Spells (which, in MANY ways is a return to the way Paladin spells worked in earlier editions anyway, when Paladins didn't have their own spell list at all, they just picked from the Cleric spell list). Their Identity wont suffer if their Channel Divinity gets rolled into bonus spell slots and unique spells (like the unique spells that Warlocks and Warlock sub-types get).
I also wanted to come back to this specifically. Nothing about the OneD&D, compared to 5e, has robbed the Paladin of their identity. Can Clerics do Smite Spells now? Sure. Can they do them with absolutely no action cost, multiple times per round? No. (all assuming they have enough slots) A Paladin can Smite during an Attack of Opportunity reaction, a Cleric can't. A Paladin can Smite in attack one, Smite in attack two, Smite in a Bonus Attack, AND Smite in an Attack of Opportunity. A Cleric can only ever do it once per turn because Smite spells (in OneD&D) burn your Reaction.
This information is PLAIN wrong, re-read the UA for Druid and Paladin, you'll note this line under Divine Smite.
You can use Divine Smite no more than once during a turn, and you can’t use it on the same turn that you cast a spell.
A paladin can only smite once per turn (inc smite spells, as they cost a bonus action). A paladin can divine smite on an Attack of Opportunity but can no longer use any smite spell if they have cast it previously and yet to land the attack, since smite spells require a bonus action and you do not have your bonus action on a reaction outside of your turn. This said, I favour the restriction to once per turn and conversion of smite spells to cast on hit, it makes Paladin easier to balance, what I have issue with, is Clerics getting smite spells and then out-performing Paladin with them... yeah...
And really, Divine Smite, side protection benefits (Auras in 5e), and their Oath is what drives the Paladin's role and identity. It always has been. Not the Smite spells.
Oaths are mainly a subclass identity as they vary between subclasses, while all Paladins have an Oath, the relationship back to class identify varies. Paladins definitely are known as the Smite Class of 5E tho. While the Auras are definitely a thing Paladin is known for, their Aura spells are now open to Cleric, Aura of Purity, Aura of Life, Aura of Vitality, worse yet Cleric gets them sooner
Just like Druids are known for their connection to nature, yet everybody knows Druids are the shapeshifting wild shape class, that they can take on forms for performing various tasks. Class identity is not a single feature or piece of fluff.
They didn't suffer when Warlocks got a little bit of a Smite ability. They didn't suffer when other classes got a bonus damage once per turn (Blessed Strikes, the various bonus damages that some Ranger subclasses get, etc.). A Paladin's identity is as strong and in-tact as it was in 1e and 3e.
When did Warlocks get Smite again? Xanathar's Guide to Everything... ok well that won't be important right?
Well you know what sort of did harm Paladin, it was having a warlock subclass that had a dip so enticing, even I fell for it without considering the actual harm it does do to Paladin Identify and that Subclass is Hexblade... now trying to remember when Hexblade came out... oh right Xanathar's Guide to Everything. There is now a lot of Hexadins and I do think to some degree Hexadin does harm Paladin identity because of how twisted lore needs to get to justify it. So Paladin did in MY* opinion suffer when Eldritch Smite came out, because it came out when Hexblade came out and that, again in MY* opinion, did harm Paladin Identity to some degree.
*people are free to disagree with me, not everybody will agree with this.
In regards to Hexblades getting smite, I think it does infringe a bit too much on Paladin but a fix was Pact of the Blade was needed, I just don't think Hexblade and Eldritch Smite were necessarily the correct fixes; and that isn't just from how it infringes on Paladin but also because of how OPed Hexblade+Pact of the Blade actually was/is compared to other Warlock Builds.
Their Identity didn't suffer when their Steed ability became a spell. Their Identity didn't suffer when their Holy Sword ability got folded into Channel Divinity. Their Identity didn't suffer due to Eldritch Smite. Their Identity didn't suffer when Rangers got "Searing Smite" in Tasha's Cauldron. Their Identity hasn't suffered even slightly with the unification of Cleric and Paladin spell lists into Divine Spells (which, in MANY ways is a return to the way Paladin spells worked in earlier editions anyway, when Paladins didn't have their own spell list at all, they just picked from the Cleric spell list). Their Identity wont suffer if their Channel Divinity gets rolled into bonus spell slots and unique spells (like the unique spells that Warlocks and Warlock sub-types get).
Find Steed being a spell in 5E didn't harm Paladin because it remained Paladin Exclusive, with the exception of Magical Secrets from Bard, nobody else could pick up Find Steed. Not enough Bards were going around using magical secrets for Find Steed when there are juicer picks but some still did. the OneD&D playtests however made it far easier for Bard to get Find Greater Steed** and also gave it to Cleric which in fact has harmed Paladin's Identity. quiet a bit.
Paladin's identity has suffered greatly from all Paladin spells going onto the combined spell list, Jeremy Crawford literally acknowledged this in the Survey Results video for Paladin and Druid, that people feel too much Identity has been lost from Paladin from this. Did you even watch that video? Paladin would suffer greatly if their Channel Divinities got rolled into spell slots!? That one isn't even up for debate, Paladin is a highly resource dependent class, restricting their resources down OBVIOUSLY harms the class, that shouldn't even be up for debate.
**tho harder for College of Lore to pick up find steed, who now need to wait til 11 like every other bard.
If we're high enough level to be worrying about anti-magic field, then I've probably used the spell for a bond to a magic weapon and not a conjured weapon. So I'm not losing my weapon, just the bond. That can make some things less ideal, sure (mainly in the form of changing my weapon stat from my casting stat to STR or DEX)... but everyone is going to be having some major pain with an anti-magic field. Like all of the party casters, not just the pact of the blade warlock.
And Anti-Magic fields are rare, typically high level, and especially designed to be huge impediments to casters (again, it's a problem for all casters, not just pact of the blade warlocks). That doesn't seem like a reason to completely derail the change, because an edge case that's supposed to cause a dramatic problem ... causes a dramatic problem.
Yup - my bad on that - I corrected myself above. I thought Pact Weapon was an hour like the other two.
Still no explanations, only assertions
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't see how turning class features into spells simplifies things. Of all the things people have talked about wanting to revise or overhaul in 5E, I don't recall the mechanism of activating class abilities being one that was mentioned frequently, if at all. But whereas before class abilities were things you just got, sometimes with the ability to gain extra uses at the cost of a spell slot, now Sorcerers HAVE to use their spell slots for their 5th-, 7th-, and 9th-level abilities. The Draconic Sorcerer's two higher-level abilities are merely buffs to spells that they still have to cast with spell slots. The Ranger's new Favored Enemy is reduced to "Hunter's Mark works a little better for you, but you still have to spend your precious few spell slots to use it". The Wizard has to spend a 3rd-level spell slot to swap out one of their prepared spells for another one. They have to spend a 4th-level spell slot to modify a spell that they then have to use ANOTHER spell slot to cast later. Even a VERY limited number of free uses per day(or even just one), with the ability to expend spell slots for additional uses would be a big improvement. I am very firmly opposed to class features that require the use of spell slots. If you can't even do it once a day for free, I'm voting it LOW on the survey.
Memorize, Modify, and Scribe are all Rituals, which means the Wizard can do them without a spell slot. It just takes 10 minutes, so ... re-memorizing a spell only costs a spell slot if you do it in combat. And even then, you aren't going to want to do it in combat, because it takes a full minute even without it being a Ritual. So, basically, it doesn't cost you a spell slot. And for Wizards, they don't even have to prepare Rituals... so it doesn't cost the Wizard anything other than time.
Create _does_ cost a slot .. but, again it's not really something you're going to want to do in combat: you have to concentrate on Create Spell for an hour. And its only purpose is not combat utility, but making the modified spell a permanent part of your library. (my only change to its write-up would be to make a casting time of 1 hour instead of a concentration for an hour, and make it a Ritual, but otherwise I see no problem with it)
While I can kind of see the points for and against this change I feel like it makes more sense for the sorcerer than for warlock or wizard.
And the thing is, they've kind of already given themselves a better way to do this by formalising actions as Magic; make the features magic actions/bonus actions and then update relevant spells/features to apply to this (e.g- can counterspell Magic actions, magic actions can have a specified level to make that harder to do).
Pact boons as cantrips just feels especially weird mechanically, and in terms of organisation all they have to do is shove them at the end like invocations if they don't want to clutter the main page.
Wizard's create/memorize/modify/scribe spells should IMO just be class features. Only memorize and modify really justify a spell slot to make them faster, the other two should just be limited in how often you can do them per day so it's a gradual process.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
In that case, what is it that they do? Is Eldritch Blast magical? Yes. But if it's not a spell, how does it even work? What differentiates it from spells? If Find Familiar is not a ritual and not magical, then what the hell is it? Magic is used by mortals through spells. It's just how it works in-universe.
Class features as spells just feels extraordinarily janky to me. It's the kind of thing I remember seeing back when I dabbled in modding for Diablo 2. Doing it here in a ttrpg feels like a workaround blindly implemented when there wasn't even a problem.
Having to flip pages to see what your new feature-that-is-a-spell even does is dumb.
Wizards have actually already set themselves up to create non-spell magic though by classifying various new rules as "Magic" actions, so they could easily just have find familiar/summon familiar/whatever be a Magic action, and then specify in things like antimagic field, counterspell etc. (and/or a box aside around Magic actions) that anything that suppresses/blocks spells also does the same for magic actions (in the case of updated counterspell etc. it just needs to work on magic actions, since spells are magic actions too).
There's no reason they can't have levelled magic actions for the purpose of counterspell difficulty, and they could also broaden concentration to be a possible requirement for a magic action (not just spells), as this would be worth doing for the various effects we've seen before that occupy concentration but aren't traditional spells.
I'm undecided personally on eldritch blast specifically, but for me that's because I'd rather see it become a weaker Arcane list cantrip but with warlocks able to use invocations to boost it back up to previous levels if eldritch blaster is what you're trying to build. But this comes from a long-standing gripe of mine which is that you don't often see warlocks using other ranged cantrips much, because none of the invocations interact with anything but eldritch blast (and 5e hex works best on it due to the multiple beams). But with the UA version of hex that's no longer the case, and it's a more obvious core feature to me than eldritch blast because it can work with basically anything that hits – technically they could even re-word to work with anything that deals damage, since it only affects the one target anyway.
Now whether hex should be a class feature or not… I'm actually a bit undecided on that too, I think it could be and probably should be, but it wouldn't make a big difference. It's the pact boons that bother me more; these should just be class feature options as before, each giving you magic action(s) to handle them. Pact of the Chain in particular needs to be, so they can move the per-patron familiars out to sub-classes, it's silly for them to be all bundled up in a weird spell plus an eldritch invocation; just have each patron tell me what my familiar is (or can be), and what its special feature is if I take Favor of the Chain Master. Job done.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I had this idea for a homebrew invocation to replace agonizing blast. It would let you choose a damage type, and you could add your cha mod to the one damage roll of a cantrip that dealt that damage type.
You have to flip those pages anyway (or use the search engine, depending on how you access your books) though. Like, you're not saving the sorcerer or wizard any time by not sending them to the spell chapter when they level up due to their feature - they need to go there regardless.
No, magic is used by mortals through manipulating the Weave. Spells are but one way to do that
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think you're right, Magic action was a more elegant solution. I doubt they'll turn features like druids' shapeshifting into spells. Some features, like Eldritch Blast or sorcerer's stuff, could be spells, but Scribe/Modify/Create Spell, or warlock pact "cantrips" could just as well be Magic actions, since they are outside spell slot economy or combat anyway.
Why are channel nature and channel Divinity not spells?
I think mostly because they overtly consume a resource that is not a spell slot.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
While that is mostly/technically true, it's also a resource that can be exchanged for spell slots. Which means you can (_sort_of_) give them an exchange rate, and value, relative to spell slots. So, with a little reworking, you _could_ just make them spell slot driven... and then just make them spells.
As is, it's not a perfect conversion, but it wouldn't take much to do it that way. Not much more of a radical change than what we're already seeing in OneD&D.
Making them spell slot driven really wouldn't work, they still need a resource to burn but would be so much more valuable for those spell slots that it would mean everybody would save those slots for the spells, the only way to balance it would be to then nerf them as spells, as which point you're nerfing the classes themselves, which now are actually missing class features. The end result is you either destroy class identity (which has been a big issue for Paladin in the Druid/Paladin UA) or you stop them using spell slots for anything else. Overall, Paladin already exhausts it's spell slots for smites, making spell slots more valuable or putting in more competition for them only harms Paladin.
Most of the features turned into spells, actually make sense, like Warlocks cantrips, they do not use spell slots either and are magical actions. Magical actions without a resource cost are easily converted into cantrips.
None of that matches my experience. My Clerics rarely use their Channel Divinity often enough to matter, so having the extra flexibility to Channel Divinity or cast spells, via the Tasha option to convert CD to spell slots, was a significant win. If you remove that cost (having to actually spend the action economy to convert your CD to spell slots), it becomes an even bigger win. With "Turn Undead" it's because the ability is so situational that it's not always even relevant, much less useful. With Domain specific CD, like War God's Blessing, it's more about "saving it for the right time", which might never arrive. With something like War God's Blessing is a spell, I have more flexibility about when to use it and how often. With something like Turn Undead, the underlying resource will never go un-used, even if the specific ability never gets used.
A 1st or 2nd level spell for "Turn Undead", maybe that is always prepared, and that scales with spell slot, would be much more practical to my Clerics than having a feature they rarely, if ever, use. Change CD to _always_ just grant an extra spell slot at certain levels, and then replace the function of CD to be a spell. Make it work like the Warlock's sub-type specific spells (where Pact Weapon isn't even available to all Warlocks, just Pact of the Blade Warlocks) : all Clerics get the "Turn Undead" spell, but only War Domain Clerics get the "War God's Blessing" spell, and so on for each Domain.
My Paladins? They already conserve their spell slots to smite at the right time instead having an itchy trigger about it. The thing you're saying wouldn't change their behavior at all. In fact, having CD just be a bonus spell slot might get them to do spells MORE often because they worry ever so slightly less about running out of spell slots.
I also wanted to come back to this specifically. Nothing about the OneD&D, compared to 5e, has robbed the Paladin of their identity. Can Clerics do Smite Spells now? Sure. Can they do them with absolutely no action cost, multiple times per round? No. (all assuming they have enough slots) A Paladin can Smite during an Attack of Opportunity reaction, a Cleric can't. A Paladin can Smite in attack one, Smite in attack two, Smite in a Bonus Attack, AND Smite in an Attack of Opportunity. A Cleric can only ever do it once per turn because Smite spells (in OneD&D) burn your Reaction.
And really, Divine Smite, side protection benefits (Auras in 5e), and their Oath is what drives the Paladin's role and identity. It always has been. Not the Smite spells.
They didn't suffer when Warlocks got a little bit of a Smite ability. They didn't suffer when other classes got a bonus damage once per turn (Blessed Strikes, the various bonus damages that some Ranger subclasses get, etc.). A Paladin's identity is as strong and in-tact as it was in 1e and 3e.
Their Identity didn't suffer when their Steed ability became a spell. Their Identity didn't suffer when their Holy Sword ability got folded into Channel Divinity. Their Identity didn't suffer due to Eldritch Smite. Their Identity didn't suffer when Rangers got "Searing Smite" in Tasha's Cauldron. Their Identity hasn't suffered even slightly with the unification of Cleric and Paladin spell lists into Divine Spells (which, in MANY ways is a return to the way Paladin spells worked in earlier editions anyway, when Paladins didn't have their own spell list at all, they just picked from the Cleric spell list). Their Identity wont suffer if their Channel Divinity gets rolled into bonus spell slots and unique spells (like the unique spells that Warlocks and Warlock sub-types get).
This information is PLAIN wrong, re-read the UA for Druid and Paladin, you'll note this line under Divine Smite.
A paladin can only smite once per turn (inc smite spells, as they cost a bonus action). A paladin can divine smite on an Attack of Opportunity but can no longer use any smite spell if they have cast it previously and yet to land the attack, since smite spells require a bonus action and you do not have your bonus action on a reaction outside of your turn. This said, I favour the restriction to once per turn and conversion of smite spells to cast on hit, it makes Paladin easier to balance, what I have issue with, is Clerics getting smite spells and then out-performing Paladin with them... yeah...
Oaths are mainly a subclass identity as they vary between subclasses, while all Paladins have an Oath, the relationship back to class identify varies. Paladins definitely are known as the Smite Class of 5E tho. While the Auras are definitely a thing Paladin is known for, their Aura spells are now open to Cleric, Aura of Purity, Aura of Life, Aura of Vitality, worse yet Cleric gets them sooner
Just like Druids are known for their connection to nature, yet everybody knows Druids are the shapeshifting wild shape class, that they can take on forms for performing various tasks. Class identity is not a single feature or piece of fluff.
When did Warlocks get Smite again? Xanathar's Guide to Everything... ok well that won't be important right?
Well you know what sort of did harm Paladin, it was having a warlock subclass that had a dip so enticing, even I fell for it without considering the actual harm it does do to Paladin Identify and that Subclass is Hexblade... now trying to remember when Hexblade came out... oh right Xanathar's Guide to Everything. There is now a lot of Hexadins and I do think to some degree Hexadin does harm Paladin identity because of how twisted lore needs to get to justify it. So Paladin did in MY* opinion suffer when Eldritch Smite came out, because it came out when Hexblade came out and that, again in MY* opinion, did harm Paladin Identity to some degree.
*people are free to disagree with me, not everybody will agree with this.
In regards to Hexblades getting smite, I think it does infringe a bit too much on Paladin but a fix was Pact of the Blade was needed, I just don't think Hexblade and Eldritch Smite were necessarily the correct fixes; and that isn't just from how it infringes on Paladin but also because of how OPed Hexblade+Pact of the Blade actually was/is compared to other Warlock Builds.
Find Steed being a spell in 5E didn't harm Paladin because it remained Paladin Exclusive, with the exception of Magical Secrets from Bard, nobody else could pick up Find Steed. Not enough Bards were going around using magical secrets for Find Steed when there are juicer picks but some still did. the OneD&D playtests however made it far easier for Bard to get Find Greater Steed** and also gave it to Cleric which in fact has harmed Paladin's Identity. quiet a bit.
Paladin's identity has suffered greatly from all Paladin spells going onto the combined spell list, Jeremy Crawford literally acknowledged this in the Survey Results video for Paladin and Druid, that people feel too much Identity has been lost from Paladin from this. Did you even watch that video? Paladin would suffer greatly if their Channel Divinities got rolled into spell slots!? That one isn't even up for debate, Paladin is a highly resource dependent class, restricting their resources down OBVIOUSLY harms the class, that shouldn't even be up for debate.
**tho harder for College of Lore to pick up find steed, who now need to wait til 11 like every other bard.