Maybe the real answer is classes that are meant to be gishes should get a similar function built into their class at default so there is no need to dip for it. Similar idea with the monk, let them use Wisdom for their attack rolls. Non gish classes with a gish sub class take it on a case by case basis, like I do not think wizards as blade singers need any perks in that regard, but maybe the bard does.(though I still think they work better as half casters, but im old and played them since 1e)
Maybe the real answer is classes that are meant to be gishes should get a similar function built into their class at default so there is no need to dip for it.
A lot of the problem with gishes is that there isn't an arcane gish class (at least, prior to revised warlock); they keep trying to do it with subclasses, and that doesn't work, because you wind up being too good at whichever aspect of the gish is served by your class and inadequate at the part that isn't. Or else you just wind up overpowered.
I don't see how that is a problem any more than any other class combo not existing as a unique class. Is it a problem there isn't a rogue/cleric class? The divine shadow some 1/2 caster divine, expert with a limited sneak attack. Either they should be adding dozens of classes or they should accept that people need to get to some concepts with feats, sub classes or multi classing. And the arcane gish landing there isn't a bad thing. But artificer existed as well if it was some huge need they could have brought it in. But sure, make a arcane gish core class that is fine. But if it gets to be sad so should the divine and primal gish classes, and without needing to multi class to do it. And if they can't be SAD maybe the arcane version shouldn't be as well. Its not like arcane spells are weaker than divine or primal spells so they pick up the slack here.
1- for Martial/Divine and Martial/Primal, you have actual half-caster classes ... but no 1/3 caster subclasses.
2- for Martial/Arcane, you have at least two 1/3 subclasses (EK, AT), but no full-time Martial/Arcane half-caster class. (the Artificer and Warlock can be made to work that way, but it's not really their optimal build, IMO -- as Martials, they really lend themselves more to Multiclassing than being a full on half-caster Martial class)
Someone said something in one of these threads about making the Warlock be the Martial/Arcane half-caster... and at first I rejected it. But it's actually growing on me. Return the Bard to being much more of a swiss-army-knife class (more so than the OneD&D version is, IMO), as part of their JOATMON role: a modular half-caster class ... and remove that kind of thing from the Warlock. Change the Warlock to being a Martial/Arcane half-caster class. Change the Artificer to be subclasses that can be utilized by the Wizard, Cleric (forge), Druid (fetishes and runes), Bard (creation), Warlock (binding spirits into items), Fighter (replacing the rune warrior subclass), maybe Ranger (runes and fetishes like the Druid), Barbarian and Monk (focused on magic imbued into tattoos), and maybe add some of that to the clockwork Sorcerer. And also make Divine and Primal versions of the EK and AT, as well as versions of those for the Monk. Now all 3 spell types have a Martial/Half-Caster, and 1/3 subclasses for each of the Martial classes.
(and I don't want to ignore the "Multiclassing" angle -- with a little bit if reform in the subclasses, you could easily replace the 1/2 and 1/3 casters with good multiclass build paths ... that's actually often my preference ... but I like options as well. I don't see a reason to NOT have hybridization options via Feats, Multiclassing, and subclasses)
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
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 think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
I love the theory of many pacts! make one with every weirdo with wings/tentacles/is-on-fire you meet OR focus on deeper dealing with a single entity. you pick. either way is covered, lore-blurb-wise.
...just don't assume they're as monogamous as you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
I love the theory of many pacts! make one with every weirdo with wings/tentacles/is-on-fire you meet OR focus on deeper dealing with a single entity. you pick. either way is covered, lore-blurb-wise.
...just don't assume they're as monogamous as you.
That would be fine if the class was designed from a many pact model, but level 1 and 3 only does not make a many pact model. It makes a no damn sense model. But hey if every invocation, spells, feature is a different pact instead of one big pact you have 30+ minor pacts, that im cool with.
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
I love the theory of many pacts! make one with every weirdo with wings/tentacles/is-on-fire you meet OR focus on deeper dealing with a single entity. you pick. either way is covered, lore-blurb-wise.
...just don't assume they're as monogamous as you.
That would be fine if the class was designed from a many pact model, but level 1 and 3 only does not make a many pact model. It makes a no damn sense model. But hey if every invocation, spells, feature is a different pact instead of one big pact you have 30+ minor pacts, that im cool with.
that's a fair statement and something that did bug me. briefly. the UA lore blurb suggests that some warlocks may "begin their search for magical power" by "dabbling in invocations" so like you just described i landed on the invocations as pacts. spells are spells, but invocations make sense as borrowed power. it amuses me to think of my future warlock diplomat seemingly outmaneuvered into agreeing to the Beast Speech invocation but turning it around to forge alliances with the geese that patrol the next town over. but freedom of choice means the warlock beside me could have a single patron and all their boons come from just their one contract. i like that a lot.
moreover, the many pacts model would explain away warlocks as an expertise class (even if just by dm's fiat). not every fairy's favor owed to you results in something like One With Shadows, Pact of the Chain, or a Mystic Arcanum. what about gifted checks and saves? maybe a nupperibo gave the warlock a trinket good for high likelihood of success at tracking one individual, single use like a scroll. a single instance of improved stealth from a quasit, one bonus to athletics from a bulezau, while a monodrone might eagerly trade any time for a one-time bonus to save vs charm. interesting results of bargains struck during the story, sure, but i think it would make a decent class concept (and then players less interested in lore could then just wave away their bonus to lock picking this time as a favor from a pixie in their childhood or even "eh, i know a guy. wink."). either a literally consumed resource or a several times a day power of replacing (via pact!) some skill check with the warlock's Arcane or Persuasion check.
...and none of this is on the topic of blade dips. so i'll add that if pact of the blade was a feat then no one would have to one-dip into lock. people take Magic Initiate for a familiar all the time, why not just make it easy on them?
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron.
Where exactly did they say that? Because what they did say was:
"this [3rd level] patron was pulling strings all along"
The implication is more like (using an analogy to large universities with extremely large lower division classes, where you sometimes only see the professor at large lectures, and only ever get to interact with, and ask questions to, their teaching assistants):
You had the same Patron at 1st level that you had at 3rd level, but until you proved yourself worthy of directly interacting with the "Professor" at 3rd level, you were dealing with a "TA" before that. That TA was never your Patron/Instructor, they were just an intermediary to deal with the potential riff-raff. The 3rd level Patron was the actual source of the whole thing.
(compare that with upper division (3rd year + ) or graduate level classes, where the classes are smaller, and you often do interact directly with the Instructor/Professor)
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron.
Where exactly did they say that? Because what they did say was:
"this [3rd level] patron was pulling strings all along"
The implication is more like (using an analogy to large universities with extremely large lower division classes, where you sometimes only see the professor at large lectures, and only ever get to interact with, and ask questions to, their teaching assistants):
You had the same Patron at 1st level that you had at 3rd level, but until you proved yourself worthy of directly interacting with the "Professor" at 3rd level, you were dealing with a "TA" before that. That TA was never your Patron/Instructor, they were just an intermediary to deal with the potential riff-raff. The 3rd level Patron was the actual source of the whole thing.
(compare that with upper division (3rd year + ) or graduate level classes, where the classes are smaller, and you often do interact directly with the Instructor/Professor)
10:50ish it starts, they specifically state we leave it up to the player to decide it your pact boon is with your subclass pact patron or some other patron. Other dude says oh this is fun. Me I think oh this is lame. But I don't like the level 11 patron ability, I don't like to see the patron up in the warlocks business all the time.
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron.
Where exactly did they say that? Because what they did say was:
"this [3rd level] patron was pulling strings all along"
The implication is more like (using an analogy to large universities with extremely large lower division classes, where you sometimes only see the professor at large lectures, and only ever get to interact with, and ask questions to, their teaching assistants):
You had the same Patron at 1st level that you had at 3rd level, but until you proved yourself worthy of directly interacting with the "Professor" at 3rd level, you were dealing with a "TA" before that. That TA was never your Patron/Instructor, they were just an intermediary to deal with the potential riff-raff. The 3rd level Patron was the actual source of the whole thing.
(compare that with upper division (3rd year + ) or graduate level classes, where the classes are smaller, and you often do interact directly with the Instructor/Professor)
10:50ish it starts, they specifically state we leave it up to the player to decide it your pact boon is with your subclass pact patron or some other patron. Other dude says oh this is fun. Me I think oh this is lame. But I don't like the level 11 patron ability, I don't like to see the patron up in the warlocks business all the time.
Meh. IMO, If it didn't make it into the document, it's no different than software companies talking about vaporware features.
Official document > playtest document > everything else
Not that I would shame anyone for homebrewing that situation... but that's about the level at which I view things that didn't make it into an actual document.
Re: 11th Level: I mean, it's just that you have contact other plane always known/prepared, without any cost to your number of spells known. The flavor/fluff part I would ignore. One of the things I love about Great Old One is that your patron might not even know you exist: you're a mosquito to them, stealing some of their blood/magic. As long as things like the wording of that 11th level feature stay flavor/fluff, it still remains that a Warlock might not be a contracted employee and might instead be mosquito or magic-hacker stealing power from an eldritch being that doesn't even know they exist.
What is in the document is a option not a this is how it works every time, they leave it open, the some isn't just because the rest are ignorant, the some is because its only some. It is not a homebrew it is literally their stated intent of what that section means. Choosing to interpret it as a constant would be the houmebrew if homebrew is the correct term for this. "They typically learn theirinitial spells and boonsthrough bargains with lesser entitiesor contactingdistant planes. Soon enough, though, they are drawn into a binding pact with a more powerful patron.(SomeWarlocks discover, sooner or later, thatthis patron was pulling strings all along, usinglesser beings as pawns in their schemes)
What is in the document is a option not a this is how it works every time, [...] "They typically learn theirinitial spells and boonsthrough bargains with lesser entitiesor contactingdistant planes. Soon enough, though, they are drawn into a binding pact with a more powerful patron.(SomeWarlocks discover, sooner or later, thatthis patron was pulling strings all along, usinglesser beings as pawns in their schemes)
I suppose one way to read the parenthetical is that it is an option.
Based on where the modifier ("some") is in that parenthetical, it's also a legitimate read that "in all situations, the 3rd level patron was behind it all along ... but only some warlocks learn that fact. The rest of them remain ignorant of it, but it was still true that it was always the 3rd level patron."
"Some Warlocks discover" doesn't automatically mean that it's only true some of the time. It means that only some Warlocks discover it.
If that's not the RAI, they should come up with a wording that makes it more clear that it's not "Some Warlocks discover" but instead "sometimes it was this Patron that was behind the scenes the whole time, and sometimes not."
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
Tell that to Paladins who have had a similar problem with oaths since the start of 5e
Tell that to Paladins who have had a similar problem with oaths since the start of 5e
To be fair, Paladins don't get an "oath boon" before swearing their oaths, it's more like at 1st- and 2nd- level they're "just" holy warriors, then they swear the oath that really shapes the type of holy warrior they will become.
The problem for Pact Boons is it's named for something that hasn't happened yet, so it just needs to be renamed. Though they could call the 5th-level upgrades "Pact Upgrade" or something, and change the flavour a bit so it's no longer "Your patron gave you this cool book" to "You discovered this cool book and it calls to you, but you don't yet know why" or something; make it mysterious so that choosing the patron (and confirming the pact) is answering the question.
In this way it's up to you if you were always in a pact (and just didn't really know it), the patron was just giving you a taste of the power and you signed the deal in response, or you sought it out in the first place etc. Open-ended flavour should always be the goal for character stuff IMO.
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.
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
Tell that to Paladins who have had a similar problem with oaths since the start of 5e
The core problem is that pacts, oaths, and choice of divinity (for clerics) really should limit how you can roleplay a character, and 5e has generally tried to do away with tying RP requirements to specific classes and subclasses, probably because it may make that character nonviable to play in some types of campaigns. This leads to an uneasy situation where character features that really should be a big deal wind up having no actual mechanical weight.
The way you make pacts really feel like pacts is by making them into actual pacts: in exchange for my power, you are expected to do X. This is a particular problem for warlocks, because several patrons (most obviously, the fiend) are likely to have demands that make the character simply not viable as a PC in a heroic campaign.
The way you make pacts really feel like pacts is by making them into actual pacts: in exchange for my power, you are expected to do X. This is a particular problem for warlocks, because several patrons (most obviously, the fiend) are likely to have demands that make the character simply not viable as a PC in a heroic campaign.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
While he would have had no qualms about killing people to get what he wanted, that didn't mean he couldn't weigh up the alternatives and the benefits of keeping allies on side etc. While he had no particular interest in saving innocents, if achieving his own goals just happened to save others, or saving them might help achieve it, then he wasn't going to avoid that etc. He was evil because he was entirely self-motivated; he wanted to end the Curse of Strahd because he believed that in doing so he might learn how to end his own curse.
There are also styles of pacts where it's still largely up to the warlock; for example, a Fiend might demand souls, but the warlock gets to choose to only send "deserving" ones. It's not the most obviously "good" path (though you could try to argue it as punishing the wicked), it could also be a deception of some kind, e.g- you think it's an avenging angel seeking justice or whatever, but in reality it's a fiend who just didn't bother to correct that assumption.
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.
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
Tell that to Paladins who have had a similar problem with oaths since the start of 5e
The core problem is that pacts, oaths, and choice of divinity (for clerics) really should limit how you can roleplay a character, and 5e has generally tried to do away with tying RP requirements to specific classes and subclasses, probably because it may make that character nonviable to play in some types of campaigns. This leads to an uneasy situation where character features that really should be a big deal wind up having no actual mechanical weight.
The way you make pacts really feel like pacts is by making them into actual pacts: in exchange for my power, you are expected to do X. This is a particular problem for warlocks, because several patrons (most obviously, the fiend) are likely to have demands that make the character simply not viable as a PC in a heroic campaign.
I hadn't thought of it before, but in 5e the pact was part of your back story which could or could not be ongoing depending on how you wanted to play it. Now, you are making the deal at level 3 so in play you have to come up with some deal that makes sense for both parties costing you something at level 3 to keep going as a warlock. Or you basically just ignore it which feels weird to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Maybe the real answer is classes that are meant to be gishes should get a similar function built into their class at default so there is no need to dip for it. Similar idea with the monk, let them use Wisdom for their attack rolls. Non gish classes with a gish sub class take it on a case by case basis, like I do not think wizards as blade singers need any perks in that regard, but maybe the bard does.(though I still think they work better as half casters, but im old and played them since 1e)
A lot of the problem with gishes is that there isn't an arcane gish class (at least, prior to revised warlock); they keep trying to do it with subclasses, and that doesn't work, because you wind up being too good at whichever aspect of the gish is served by your class and inadequate at the part that isn't. Or else you just wind up overpowered.
I don't see how that is a problem any more than any other class combo not existing as a unique class. Is it a problem there isn't a rogue/cleric class? The divine shadow some 1/2 caster divine, expert with a limited sneak attack. Either they should be adding dozens of classes or they should accept that people need to get to some concepts with feats, sub classes or multi classing. And the arcane gish landing there isn't a bad thing. But artificer existed as well if it was some huge need they could have brought it in. But sure, make a arcane gish core class that is fine. But if it gets to be sad so should the divine and primal gish classes, and without needing to multi class to do it. And if they can't be SAD maybe the arcane version shouldn't be as well. Its not like arcane spells are weaker than divine or primal spells so they pick up the slack here.
That's a thing about "Gish"es (I hate that term):
1- for Martial/Divine and Martial/Primal, you have actual half-caster classes ... but no 1/3 caster subclasses.
2- for Martial/Arcane, you have at least two 1/3 subclasses (EK, AT), but no full-time Martial/Arcane half-caster class. (the Artificer and Warlock can be made to work that way, but it's not really their optimal build, IMO -- as Martials, they really lend themselves more to Multiclassing than being a full on half-caster Martial class)
Someone said something in one of these threads about making the Warlock be the Martial/Arcane half-caster... and at first I rejected it. But it's actually growing on me. Return the Bard to being much more of a swiss-army-knife class (more so than the OneD&D version is, IMO), as part of their JOATMON role: a modular half-caster class ... and remove that kind of thing from the Warlock. Change the Warlock to being a Martial/Arcane half-caster class. Change the Artificer to be subclasses that can be utilized by the Wizard, Cleric (forge), Druid (fetishes and runes), Bard (creation), Warlock (binding spirits into items), Fighter (replacing the rune warrior subclass), maybe Ranger (runes and fetishes like the Druid), Barbarian and Monk (focused on magic imbued into tattoos), and maybe add some of that to the clockwork Sorcerer. And also make Divine and Primal versions of the EK and AT, as well as versions of those for the Monk. Now all 3 spell types have a Martial/Half-Caster, and 1/3 subclasses for each of the Martial classes.
(and I don't want to ignore the "Multiclassing" angle -- with a little bit if reform in the subclasses, you could easily replace the 1/2 and 1/3 casters with good multiclass build paths ... that's actually often my preference ... but I like options as well. I don't see a reason to NOT have hybridization options via Feats, Multiclassing, and subclasses)
I think the best answer is to just return getting your pact boon at level three and your patron at level 1. If someone wants to three level dip to be SAD, I am ok with it. A 1 level dip? No.
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
Technically, you do get your Patron at level 1. It's right there in the first sentence of the 1st Level Pact Boon benefit:
"You have formed a pact with an otherworldly entity that has bestowed magical powers upon you."
You just don't get the very specific patron benefits until 3rd level, nor do you have to be very specific about who your patron is until 3rd level.
Also: under the old 5e version of the class you want to stay with, the SAD was also a 1 level dip (it's a 1st level benefit for Hexblades). The new version of the class for OneD&D doesn't change when you get the SAD benefit, it changes how you get the benefit so that not every Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard has a one level dip to Hexblade specifically. They might still do a one level dip to Warlock, just not to Hexblade. Nor does it stop several other forms of SAD-blading (one of which, Shillelagh, you can get several different ways at 1st level ... you don't even really need a 1 level dip to a class to get it).
They explained it as a potentially a different patron. Thematically if its going to be level 1 I'd stop calling it a pact boon and call it something like arcane discoveries. a pact before your pact is dumb, no matter how they try to explain it away.
I love the theory of many pacts! make one with every weirdo with wings/tentacles/is-on-fire you meet OR focus on deeper dealing with a single entity. you pick. either way is covered, lore-blurb-wise.
...just don't assume they're as monogamous as you.
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!
That would be fine if the class was designed from a many pact model, but level 1 and 3 only does not make a many pact model. It makes a no damn sense model. But hey if every invocation, spells, feature is a different pact instead of one big pact you have 30+ minor pacts, that im cool with.
that's a fair statement and something that did bug me. briefly. the UA lore blurb suggests that some warlocks may "begin their search for magical power" by "dabbling in invocations" so like you just described i landed on the invocations as pacts. spells are spells, but invocations make sense as borrowed power. it amuses me to think of my future warlock diplomat seemingly outmaneuvered into agreeing to the Beast Speech invocation but turning it around to forge alliances with the geese that patrol the next town over. but freedom of choice means the warlock beside me could have a single patron and all their boons come from just their one contract. i like that a lot.
moreover, the many pacts model would explain away warlocks as an expertise class (even if just by dm's fiat). not every fairy's favor owed to you results in something like One With Shadows, Pact of the Chain, or a Mystic Arcanum. what about gifted checks and saves? maybe a nupperibo gave the warlock a trinket good for high likelihood of success at tracking one individual, single use like a scroll. a single instance of improved stealth from a quasit, one bonus to athletics from a bulezau, while a monodrone might eagerly trade any time for a one-time bonus to save vs charm. interesting results of bargains struck during the story, sure, but i think it would make a decent class concept (and then players less interested in lore could then just wave away their bonus to lock picking this time as a favor from a pixie in their childhood or even "eh, i know a guy. wink."). either a literally consumed resource or a several times a day power of replacing (via pact!) some skill check with the warlock's Arcane or Persuasion check.
...and none of this is on the topic of blade dips. so i'll add that if pact of the blade was a feat then no one would have to one-dip into lock. people take Magic Initiate for a familiar all the time, why not just make it easy on them?
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!
Where exactly did they say that? Because what they did say was:
"this [3rd level] patron was pulling strings all along"
The implication is more like (using an analogy to large universities with extremely large lower division classes, where you sometimes only see the professor at large lectures, and only ever get to interact with, and ask questions to, their teaching assistants):
You had the same Patron at 1st level that you had at 3rd level, but until you proved yourself worthy of directly interacting with the "Professor" at 3rd level, you were dealing with a "TA" before that. That TA was never your Patron/Instructor, they were just an intermediary to deal with the potential riff-raff. The 3rd level Patron was the actual source of the whole thing.
(compare that with upper division (3rd year + ) or graduate level classes, where the classes are smaller, and you often do interact directly with the Instructor/Professor)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgngcZpt_YQ&t=1037s
10:50ish it starts, they specifically state we leave it up to the player to decide it your pact boon is with your subclass pact patron or some other patron. Other dude says oh this is fun. Me I think oh this is lame. But I don't like the level 11 patron ability, I don't like to see the patron up in the warlocks business all the time.
Meh. IMO, If it didn't make it into the document, it's no different than software companies talking about vaporware features.
Official document > playtest document > everything else
Not that I would shame anyone for homebrewing that situation... but that's about the level at which I view things that didn't make it into an actual document.
Re: 11th Level: I mean, it's just that you have contact other plane always known/prepared, without any cost to your number of spells known. The flavor/fluff part I would ignore. One of the things I love about Great Old One is that your patron might not even know you exist: you're a mosquito to them, stealing some of their blood/magic. As long as things like the wording of that 11th level feature stay flavor/fluff, it still remains that a Warlock might not be a contracted employee and might instead be mosquito or magic-hacker stealing power from an eldritch being that doesn't even know they exist.
What is in the document is a option not a this is how it works every time, they leave it open, the some isn't just because the rest are ignorant, the some is because its only some. It is not a homebrew it is literally their stated intent of what that section means. Choosing to interpret it as a constant would be the houmebrew if homebrew is the correct term for this. "They typically learn their initial spells and boons through bargains with lesser entities or contacting distant planes. Soon enough, though, they are drawn into a binding pact with a more powerful patron. (Some Warlocks discover, sooner or later, that this patron was pulling strings all along, using lesser beings as pawns in their schemes)
I suppose one way to read the parenthetical is that it is an option.
Based on where the modifier ("some") is in that parenthetical, it's also a legitimate read that "in all situations, the 3rd level patron was behind it all along ... but only some warlocks learn that fact. The rest of them remain ignorant of it, but it was still true that it was always the 3rd level patron."
"Some Warlocks discover" doesn't automatically mean that it's only true some of the time. It means that only some Warlocks discover it.
If that's not the RAI, they should come up with a wording that makes it more clear that it's not "Some Warlocks discover" but instead "sometimes it was this Patron that was behind the scenes the whole time, and sometimes not."
Tell that to Paladins who have had a similar problem with oaths since the start of 5e
To be fair, Paladins don't get an "oath boon" before swearing their oaths, it's more like at 1st- and 2nd- level they're "just" holy warriors, then they swear the oath that really shapes the type of holy warrior they will become.
The problem for Pact Boons is it's named for something that hasn't happened yet, so it just needs to be renamed. Though they could call the 5th-level upgrades "Pact Upgrade" or something, and change the flavour a bit so it's no longer "Your patron gave you this cool book" to "You discovered this cool book and it calls to you, but you don't yet know why" or something; make it mysterious so that choosing the patron (and confirming the pact) is answering the question.
In this way it's up to you if you were always in a pact (and just didn't really know it), the patron was just giving you a taste of the power and you signed the deal in response, or you sought it out in the first place etc. Open-ended flavour should always be the goal for character stuff IMO.
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.
The core problem is that pacts, oaths, and choice of divinity (for clerics) really should limit how you can roleplay a character, and 5e has generally tried to do away with tying RP requirements to specific classes and subclasses, probably because it may make that character nonviable to play in some types of campaigns. This leads to an uneasy situation where character features that really should be a big deal wind up having no actual mechanical weight.
The way you make pacts really feel like pacts is by making them into actual pacts: in exchange for my power, you are expected to do X. This is a particular problem for warlocks, because several patrons (most obviously, the fiend) are likely to have demands that make the character simply not viable as a PC in a heroic campaign.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
While he would have had no qualms about killing people to get what he wanted, that didn't mean he couldn't weigh up the alternatives and the benefits of keeping allies on side etc. While he had no particular interest in saving innocents, if achieving his own goals just happened to save others, or saving them might help achieve it, then he wasn't going to avoid that etc. He was evil because he was entirely self-motivated; he wanted to end the Curse of Strahd because he believed that in doing so he might learn how to end his own curse.
There are also styles of pacts where it's still largely up to the warlock; for example, a Fiend might demand souls, but the warlock gets to choose to only send "deserving" ones. It's not the most obviously "good" path (though you could try to argue it as punishing the wicked), it could also be a deception of some kind, e.g- you think it's an avenging angel seeking justice or whatever, but in reality it's a fiend who just didn't bother to correct that assumption.
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 hadn't thought of it before, but in 5e the pact was part of your back story which could or could not be ongoing depending on how you wanted to play it. Now, you are making the deal at level 3 so in play you have to come up with some deal that makes sense for both parties costing you something at level 3 to keep going as a warlock. Or you basically just ignore it which feels weird to me.