D&D (2024) The new warlock (Packet 7)

[DEFCON 1]

To clarify, I was talking about whether all spells are actually spells within the fiction, or if the spell is just a handy mechanical container for effects, and they're reskinnable within the fiction.

Like, the Wild Heart Barbarian can cast Speak with Animals as a Ritual at 3rd level, per the latest packet. Is the Barbarian actually casting a magic spell, recognizable as the exact same spell the Druid casts to the characters, or is speak with animals just the handy container to represent the Barbarian's connection with nature?

Every table will treat it differently.

Personally, I treat spells as just the mechanical bucket they put magic into for ease-of-use. So when the High Elf had a free cantrip as part of their species features, I never thought of it as every High Elf being a spellcaster, but rather the cantrip was just a magical ability they had. Yes, it was called a 'spell' to make it easy to define and apply any applicable rules to... but the narrative could be whatever we wanted.

In terms of the Barbarian, I currently have a Totem Barb in my current Theros campaign, and I don't even bother making the player 'perform a Ritual' to use their Speak With Animals ability. I let the Barb just talk to pretty much every animal they want all the time. They have a baby pig they carry around with them, and the two of them talk to each other without me ever being concerned about rituals or how many times per day or any "mechanics" or the like. It's a roleplaying and story-based ability for the most part, so while it's magical, it's not treated as a spell.

 

[Charlaquin]

In 4E, wasn't the Short Rest like a 5 Min thing or something?

Yep

 

[TwoSix]

Every table will treat it differently.

Personally, I treat spells as just the mechanical bucket they put magic into for ease-of-use. So when the High Elf had a free cantrip as part of their species features, I never thought of it as every High Elf being a spellcaster, but rather the cantrip was just a magical ability they had. Yes, it was called a 'spell' to make it easy to define and apply any applicable rules to... but the narrative could be whatever we wanted.

In terms of the Barbarian, I currently have a Totem Barb in my current Theros campaign, and I don't even bother making the player 'perform a Ritual' to use their Speak With Animals ability. I let the Barb just talk to pretty much every animal they want all the time. They have a baby pig they carry around with them, and the two of them talk to each other without me ever being concerned about rituals or how many times per day or any "mechanics" or the like. It's a roleplaying and story-based ability for the most part, so while it's magical, it's not treated as a spell.

Agreed, that's exactly how I run it, but it's definitely one of the ideas with a large amount of table variance.

 

[Mistwell]

Crawford's video said that their goal was to make it so that all classes "felt good" about short resting, but the new barbarian so far doesn't have any SR abilities that I can see. So either they are going to push that in another version or likely won't change it too much for other classes that don't have it.

Relentless Rage has a short rest mechanic in it.

 

[Knight_Marshal]

Am I blind or are all the "you can now cast spell X using your warlock spell slot" invocations gone now?

They don't appear to be gone, just changed to not require a spell slot, nor does their appear to be a limit on how often you can cast them.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

They don't appear to be gone, just changed to not require a spell slot, nor does their appear to be a limit on how often you can cast them.

Those have always been around. The ones that did require spell slots, such as Sculptor of Flesh, seem to have been completely removed.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Absolutely loving the new warlock! It's got some glaring balance issues, but overall the class now seems to be in such a good state when it comes down to the base idea.

The subclasses just ooze flavour too. Both thematically and mechanically. Feylock is basically nightcrawler. While changing things to pyshic damage means your goolock can be using psionic armour of agythys which just paints an amazing picture.

The main changes I'd want still are an option for Int instead of Cha when you pick the class. And also a ranged weapon option for bladelocks pact weapons.

Blink might be a better example then Nightcrawler. Or if you get Pact of the Blade with Archfey a cross between Nightcrawler and Pyslock.

 

[Weiley31]

Blink might be a better example then Nightcrawler. Or if you get Pact of the Blade with Archfey a cross between Nightcrawler and Pyslock.

Technically you get all three if you flavour it a certain way.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Now all I need is a draconic subclass for warlock...

 

[Vaalingrade]

In 4E, wasn't the Short Rest like a 5 Min thing or something?

Yeah. In 4e, Short Rests were short instead of interminably long.