D&D 5E 5e Warlock

[gyor]

The warlock is buried under the art debate so I think it deserves it own thread.

Here is how I think the Warlock works.

Atwills: Cantrips, Dailies: Spells and Encounters/inherant abilibies: Invocations.

 

[Ichneumon]

I believe that invocations work like super-cantrips, and are what the warlock casts most often. Spell slots refresh after the warlock takes a rest. I'll be interested to see what's on the warlock spell list.

 

[doctorhook]

Right now it's tough to say if this will be the most complicated spellcasting class, or the least.

 

[Vael]

My understanding is that the Warlock's spells are encounter based. So a 5th Level warlock has 2 spells, cast at 3rd level (from any of the 6 spells they know), and regains them every rest. Mystic Arcanum is the Warlock's daily spells.

Invocations are more like customization options. So they could be anything from passive abilities like darkvision, to bonus spells. Possibly daily abilities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Evocative of the 3.5 Warlock, at a glance (makes sense, it's where the Warlock was invented).

If it uses the wizard's spell list, it'd be sorta a 'just give me the good stuff' wizard.

..hmm.. could be a bit like 3.5 Warlock + 3.5 Warmage, the same way neo-Vancian subsumed 3.5 spontaneous casting.

That it's slots are all the same level instead of the classic-Vancian pyramid, with lots of lower level spells 'supporting' a few higher levels ones, makes it a bit less counter-genre.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

One thing that really bothers me is how the fluff insists that you basically must serve your patron in some way. Is it going to say the same thing for clerics? I sure hope so, because I despise with a passion the idea that a warlock is somehow more bound to their patron than a cleric to theirs.

And in any event, I don't think either fluff or crunch tying a character's class abilities to their relationship with an NPC has any right to an exclusive place in the game. Describing it as one way to interpret it, sure. Implying that taking that class means you have a master who you have to serve bugs the heck out of me--because it places classes on unequal footing unless it applies to all classes equally. If all fighters have a lord they must obey, all thieves have to maintain an affiliation with a guild to gain levels, and all mages must remain in the personal favor of the god of magic, then sure, warlocks can be part of the club. But singling out one (or a few) classes is absurd.

/rant

As for mechanics, I linked to the latest articles on the other thread, which tell us that their spell slot renew on a short rest, and their spells automatically scale (so I guess that means the level of your spell slots increases at certain levels).

 

[Halivar]

because it places classes on unequal footing unless it applies to all classes equally

After the hyper-homogenization of 4E that started in 3.x, I'm going to call this a welcome change.

I like the roleplay implications of a fickle master interrupting a PC's quest for mandatory side adventures. As a DM, I will enjoy this immensely.

EDIT: I mean, really, the 4E warlock was ridiculous. You have a pact with an outsider that doesn't give one whit how you use its granted powers? No way.

 

[Falling Icicle]

One thing that really bothers me is how the fluff insists that you basically must serve your patron in some way. Is it going to say the same thing for clerics? I sure hope so, because I despise with a passion the idea that a warlock is somehow more bound to their patron than a cleric to theirs.

And in any event, I don't think either fluff or crunch tying a character's class abilities to their relationship with an NPC has any right to an exclusive place in the game. Describing it as one way to interpret it, sure. Implying that taking that class means you have a master who you have to serve bugs the heck out of me--because it places classes on unequal footing unless it applies to all classes equally. If all fighters have a lord they must obey, all thieves have to maintain an affiliation with a guild to gain levels, and all mages must remain in the personal favor of the god of magic, then sure, warlocks can be part of the club. But singling out one (or a few) classes is absurd.

/rant

I agree that the whole patron thing could be problematic as written. It raises quite a few questions. Do warlocks have to obey their patrons? Is there any consequence for turning against them? Can the patron take the warlock's powers away? Can the warlock continue to gain levels in the warlock class without its approval? What happens if the patron dies? Etc. I agree that if clerics and paladins don't have to worry about being stripped of their powers for failing to obey their god/oath, warlocks certainly shouldn't be singled out for punishment.

 

[doctorhook]

Did anyone else notice that the flavour text allows your relationship with your patron to be a romantic one...?

I can honestly say that image right there gave me a weird vibe.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Did anyone else notice that the flavour text allows your relationship with your patron to be a romantic one...?

I can honestly say that image right there gave me a weird vibe.

Someone hasn't read Brimstone Angels.