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

[DEFCON 1]

Hmm… I guess it kind of depends. In a very black-and-white setting where there are evil people who do evil things because they’re evil, I think a cleric to an evil god makes plenty of sense. A card-carrying moustache-twirling villain may well find themselves ideologically aligned with an evil god and devote themselves to them. In a more nuanced setting, I don’t think the idea of “evil gods” really makes sense. But, evil counterparts to good gods like archdevils and the like? Yeah, I don’t imagine people intentionally becoming their clerics.

You reminded me of the arguments I had with people about this same thing in my 'Are "evil gods" necessary?' thread. I don't think you ever got to participate in that lively discussion.

 

[Remathilis]

My tinfoil hat theory is that they're afraid that a draconic warlock will demonstrate how pointless sorcerer's existence is, so they will never make one for that reason.

There is already a lot of crossover between them: GOO and Aberrant mind, shadow and undead, storm and fathomless, celestial and divine soul. Nothing has broken.

Personally, id rather a fiend/fey blooded sorcerer over a draconic or chaos warlock patron.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Just like the dragonborn draconic sorcerer is a double dragon (heh heh).

Ironically, a dragonborn draconic sorcerer can't become a dragon by level 20.

But a gnome bard? Sure! Tabaxi wizard? Yep definitely! Thri-Kreen goolock? Makes sense!

 

[OB1]

I just don't think so mate. Backwards compatibility has been the watchword of 5E, and introducing new multiclassing rules which replace the previous ones isn't compatible with that. Particularly not requiring Feats. It's a mismatch.

As much as I'd love to see a different approach to multiclassing (2E and 4E both had better approaches than 5E by miles), I think that'd require an actual edition-change.

Also if they just got rid of it, which they could do (but aren't, given all the doubling-down on MC requirements etc. in the UAs), they'd need to seriously look at subclasses and possibly introduce a couple of new classes.

I'm not sure why new rules on multi-classing aren't in line with being backward compatible. If the new rule is that you have this additional prerequisite to multi-class, it doesn't break anything that came before.

That said, another prerequisite that might be even easier to implement would require that you are 3rd level in all of your classes before you can multi-class again. Keeps away a feat tax while preventing multi single level dips. Might implement that requirement in my next game regardless.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm not sure why new rules on multi-classing aren't in line with being backward compatible. If the new rule is that you have this additional prerequisite to multi-class, it doesn't break anything that came before.

You could find old modules that have NPCs that are multi-classed but don't meet the prereqs. So that's a "break" if you were, though lets be honest NPCs are not supposed to fit the mold, so I see that as a complete non-issue.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not sure why new rules on multi-classing aren't in line with being backward compatible. If the new rule is that you have this additional prerequisite to multi-class, it doesn't break anything that came before.

That said, another prerequisite that might be even easier to implement would require that you are 3rd level in all of your classes before you can multi-class again. Keeps away a feat tax while preventing multi single level dips. Might implement that requirement in my next game regardless.

I think it pretty obviously breaks it because people will have existing characters they were planning on multiclassing or part-way through some MC combo who will get rug-pulled by any change in the MC rules, if their DM enforces them. Add to that people who want to use the old rules and it's kind of an issue.

Forcing people to do three levels in a class before dual-classing again (I don't know why they call it multi-classing lol, it's not) would be highly effective balance-wise and mess with quite a few popular MCs, but I just don't believe WotC would be okay with the pushback they'd get on such an idea - if it was subjected to the 70% threshold test, I very much doubt it - or indeed any more restrictive change to the MC rules - would pass the threshold.

That's really the ultimate thing here - I don't think even very smart changes to the MC'ing rules will hit 70%. It's kind of ironic because I don't think 70% of people like the current MC rules. I but I suspect more than 30% do. Hence with the 70% rule this would forever be in limbo (just another reason why the 70% test isn't great - even if 60% of players don't like something and want it changed, WotC have basically written themselves into a corner).

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I actually dislike how they are potentially removing all of these invocations. I've played a lot of warlocks since the launch of 5e and frankly Eldritch Sight and Eyes of the Rune Keeper are two of my favorite invocations, to the point where I almost always have at least one of them. I'd argue strongly neither is actually a "trap option" and it's led to quite a few moments in several campaigns where my characters have been able to gleam information off of old cave walls, "dead" hieroglyphic languages, or other various similar things in game. I suppose one could argue that maybe this could be considered a "problematic" invocation in that it can catch unprepared or newer DMs off guard, but that's a whole other debate.

What irks me about the removal of all of these low level at will invocations is that they locked ritual casting behind Pact of the Tome, it basically makes (for me at least) Pact of the Tome essentially now a required invocation for every warlock. I think this is just bad design. Frankly I think if these invocations are getting the axe the base class needs ritual casting (I also think the sorcerer needs ritual casting too, but again, that's a tangent for this thread). You also can't even make the argument that they just need to trim redundant invocations because they let stuff like Mask of Many Faces and Master of Myriad Forms still both being present. Do I like that they did the sensible thing and reduced the warlock levels for many invocations? Yes. That's great. Do I think it's comical that Not 4 levels after taking Mask of Many Faces I can now take another invocation that makes my first selection utterly obsolete? Also yes. Especially when they removed the ability to swap out invocations on level ups.

Pact of the Tome no longer shuts out other invocation options, forcing you to be a one-trick pony. And Pact of the Tome is only 1 invocation that you can use to access all 1st level rituals like Detect Magic, Comprehend Languages, and Speak With Animals, and can swap them out for other 1st level rituals from any class spell list, every Short Rest.

Isn't spending 1 invocation for all that functionality better than spending 2 or 3 invocations to get Eldritch Sight (Detect Magic), Eyes of the Runekeeper (Comp Lang), and Beast Speech (Speak w/ Animals), and get no swapability? It doesn't seem like it is any more "required" than if you wanted any one of those three other invocations.

Yes, this is a very strong ability that opens the Warlock's adaptability. There are a lot of strong Invocation options to choose from.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The question I'm not sure about is how much actual dipping gets done. (I don't mind "genuine multiclassing"). But there are only a few actually obnoxious single level dips, and most of them are (I hope) now a whole lot more niche.

• Paladins dipping a single level of warlock for the hexblade/pact of the blade is now a choice that trades offence for defence rather than a clear win. This side-balance came in thanks to the reworked feat system so feats like Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Shield Expert, Sentinel, Charger, and Mounted Combatant all add to Str but not to Cha. (That's not to say the War Caster/+2 Cha ASI build doesn't work, but it's definitely got much less offence so there is a cost)
• Wizards dipping a single level of cleric is now a rare thing when you can get medium armour + shields for a first level feat
• Sorcerers and bards dipping 1-2 levels of warlock for Eldritch Blast will with luck be blocked by EB scaling with warlock level (or just being a class feature) in the final version
• Coffeelocks - ????? WotC didn't block the coffeelock by changing "You can expend a spell slot to gain a number of Sorcery Points equal to the slot’s level " to "You can expend a spellcasting spell slot..." to rule out Pact Magic.

And on preview Eldritch Sight is basically always up. Detect Magic as a ritual takes ten minutes per cast. I think the invocation is too weak - but Detect Magic as a ritual is not a replacement.

 

[ProfessorDetective]

There is already a lot of crossover between them: GOO and Aberrant mind, shadow and undead, storm and fathomless, celestial and divine soul. Nothing has broken.

Personally, id rather a fiend/fey blooded sorcerer over a draconic or chaos warlock patron.

Feind and Divine Soul, as well. Hell, I think he only real exception is Archfey Patron (and Draconic Origin). There hasn't been an official Fey-themed Origin, yet. I should know, I've wanted one for years. Well, specifically a NATURE-themed Origin, but Fey feels like it would be a decent avenue to take for that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Feind and Divine Soul, as well. Hell, I think he only real exception is Archfey Patron (and Draconic Origin). There hasn't been an official Fey-themed Origin, yet. I should know, I've wanted one for years. Well, specifically a NATURE-themed Origin, but Fey feels like it would be a decent avenue to take for that.

I think draconic is better not being a patron; dragons are known for hoarding not giving power away.

Shadow isn't undead even if necromancy and nethermancy are thematically similar enough to share a school when nethermancy isn't illusion.

And honestly I want both a Poison Ivy warlock and an old man of the woods (without wild shape) sorcerer.