D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XIV: Wizard)

[DND_Reborn]

The Warlock is the only Wizard I'll ever need.

Actually, giving this some thought and if it was done correctly, I could get behind it, from a mechanical view point anyway.

 

[Aldarc]

The Warlock is the only Wizard I'll ever need.

There is a lot that I like about the Warlock, but it also disappoints me.

I would like the warlock far more if it mechanically supported doing the sort of cool things that make up the warlock flavor text like summoning planar entitites to make eldritch bargains. But no, the coolest parts about being a warlock basically gets punted off-screen or to the GM. The summoning abilities are "meh." I almost think that you could change the name and flavor text of the warlock to the sorcerer and leave everything about the warlock mechanically unchanged and it would have a negligible impact.

The Goetics in Invisible Sun, in contrast, perform ritualistic magic that summons angels, demons, and spirits to negotiate pacts in return for magical favors, information, etc. It feels like playing John Constantine, Faust, or Elric of Melniboné. It feels like how I imagine a warlock should play based upon its flavor text.

 

[CleverNickName]

But not long for this world seeing as they're driving pretty strong to the hoop to get rid of any vestiges of per-encounter design, presumably because whoever got them to make a good design decision on making custom lineages core in 5.5 did so by wishing on a monkey's paw.

Eh, haters gonna hate, I guess. But yeah, I've heard some dubious stuff about the OneD&D playtest.

Real talk: I'm not really worried about what the devs are going to change in the future. Anything they do I can undo with a house-rule...and if not, I'll just stay with 5E. I've skipped entire editions before; I'm sure I'll do it again.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I agree with some of this. For me the issue is more why make Warlock and Sorcerers their own classes? We made Warlocks a Cleric subclass and Sorcerers a Wizard subclass and they work better to me in that fashion.

Basically, there is only "so much niche stuff" to go around, and you have Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all basically competing for it...

This happens a lot in D&D, I mean, does anyone bother making a multiclass Fighter/Cleric when it's pretty much exactly the same thing as a Paladin? I bet some people do, just for the sake of it, but I doubt that it's common.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I agree with some of this. For me the issue is more why make Warlock and Sorcerers their own classes? We made Warlocks a Cleric subclass and Sorcerers a Wizard subclass and they work better to me in that fashion.

Basically, there is only "so much niche stuff" to go around, and you have Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all basically competing for it...

Did that really just happen?
Have I actually understood?
This weird class they've tried to suppress or hide
Is a wild talent that could help me delete the Wizard
If I make them good
So I'll make them good

When I delete the Wizard
Once I prove my worth
And then I delete the Wizard
What I've waited for with... with mirth
And with all of Wizards' wisdom
By my game design, they won't be blinded
Do you think that Wizards is dumb?
Or like fans so small-minded?
No, they'll say to me I see who you truly are
A classmaker on whom I can rely
And that's how we'll begin
Wizards and I

 

[DND_Reborn]

Did that really just happen?
Have I actually understood?
This weird class they've tried to suppress or hide
Is a wild talent that could help me delete the Wizard
If I make them good
So I'll make them good

When I delete the Wizard
Once I prove my worth
And then I delete the Wizard
What I've waited for with... with mirth
And with all of Wizards' wisdom
By my game design, they won't be blinded
Do you think that Wizards is dumb?
Or like fans so small-minded?
No, they'll say to me I see who you truly are
A classmaker on whom I can rely
And that's how we'll begin
Wizards and I

You may suppress the wizard, change the wizard, hate the wizard, but you WILL NEVER DELETE THE WIZARD!

(Unless it is THESE wizards: __________ of the Coast. )

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree with some of this. For me the issue is more why make Warlock and Sorcerers their own classes? We made Warlocks a Cleric subclass and Sorcerers a Wizard subclass and they work better to me in that fashion.

I genuinely don't understand how a warlock could possibly be a subclass of Cleric and do anything remotely Warlock, or how a Sorcerer could have the base class abilities of the wizard and...not just feel exactly like a wizard.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is a lot that I like about the Warlock, but it also disappoints me.

I would like the warlock far more if it mechanically supported doing the sort of cool things that make up the warlock flavor text like summoning planar entitites to make eldritch bargains. But no, the coolest parts about being a warlock basically gets punted off-screen or to the GM. The summoning abilities are "meh." I almost think that you could change the name and flavor text of the warlock to the sorcerer and leave everything about the warlock mechanically unchanged and it would have a negligible impact.

The Goetics in Invisible Sun, in contrast, perform ritualistic magic that summons angels, demons, and spirits to negotiate pacts in return for magical favors, information, etc. It feels like playing John Constantine, Faust, or Elric of Melniboné. It feels like how I imagine a warlock should play based upon its flavor text.

I'm not sure the Patron vs Pact distinction would really make sense for a Sorcerer.

Unfortunately, the stuff you want will probably never happen, because they tried it with the D&D Next playtest Warlock, and it (allegedly) polled badly enough that they scrapped it entirely and the Warlock never showed up again in the public playtest. (I've heard claims that things had to pass at least a 75% popularity threshold in order to stay, though, so don't make too much of this.)

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure the Patron vs Pact distinction would really make sense for a Sorcerer.

Mearls has said that if they could do the warlock again, they wouldn't make the distinction between Patron and Pact but create a singular subclass. They would make it less modular. This is why I am very curious about how they will design the One D&D warlock.

Unfortunately, the stuff you want will probably never happen, because they tried it with the D&D Next playtest Warlock, and it (allegedly) polled badly enough that they scrapped it entirely and the Warlock never showed up again in the public playtest. (I've heard claims that things had to pass at least a 75% popularity threshold in order to stay, though, so don't make too much of this.)

Probably not, but that does not erase my issue with the warlock in terms of the disconnect of flavor, mechanics, and play with the warlock.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Mearls has said that if they could do the warlock again, they wouldn't make the distinction between Patron and Pact but create a singular subclass. They would make it less modular. This is why I am very curious about how they will design the One D&D warlock.

Unfortunate. I actually really like the split-subclass design, and find it one of the few aspects of novel 5e design worth keeping.