D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook reveal: "New Warlock"

"The character builder's paradise".

​

We last saw the Warlock in Playtest 7, with a lot of features from 2014 restored from the previous version. Still, a lot of questions (for me) remain: here's my list from before the video ran:

Spoiler

• Will the three pacts still be invocations, and will it be possible to get all of them by level 2? (I hope not). Yes.
• If they are invocations, will people still believe they are getting more invocations than thry had in 2014? Yes.
• What will the Pact of the Chain special creature options be? (We've seen the Sphinx of Wonder previewed already.) Is there still going to be a (M-sized) skeleton option? YES!
• Will Pact of the Tome still have the lame rewritten Ritual Caster rules, of only two 1st level rituals, and never any more? (I hope not). No answer, but I doubt it's been changed.
• Is it conceivable that anyone would not take Pact of the Blade as one of their Invocations? (Doubt it.) No answer. They did not talk about whether later invocations will give Extra attack, or other concerns here.
• Will anyone be able to take Eldritch Blast? "Warlock Specific"

(Happily, many of these questions were indeed answered in the video!).
I think warlock really benefits from having the subclasses come at level 3: you can "dabble" in the occult without selling your soul until level 3 (though admittedly, the wording of the fluff text does not require you to sell your soul).

OVERVIEW

• Invocations at 1, Magical Cunning at 2 (as in PT7)
• Crawford claims we will get more eldritch invocations. Assuming the table's as in PT7, this is a bit of a fudge: there's one for a pact at level 5 (no gain) and one extra, at level 5, and for most it will go, I feel, to another pact). Yes there's more flexibility.
• Main choices are Pact Boons. "This is a big deal" -- "it is a juicy choice" they say, and Crawford makes it clear you can get them all "over time". "Over time", though, is by level 2. To me this is too much too early.
• NEW: all pact boons at level 1 now.
• NEW: "More Spooky critter options" for Pact of the Chain, speaking to Patron types. Complete list: Slaad tadpole. Skeleton, Imp, Pseudodragon, Quasit, Sprite (Fey), Sphinx of Wonder (Celestial), Venomous Snake. All will be in the PHB.
• Spellcasting has been enhanced: more invocations work with warlock spells. Now they don't just affect Eldritch Blast (which is warlock-specific -- not clear how that's mechanized, though). You can have Ray of Frost with Repelling Blast.
• NEW: Lessons of the First Ones only lets you take an Origin Feat.
• Contact Patron at 9, Mystic Arcanum at 11+, expanded spell list (though not as big as sorcerer).
• All subclasses get an expanded spell list.

SUBCLASSES

ARCHFEY - "a teleportation fantasia"

• Gameplay was not living up to the flavour. Going "all-in" on Teleportation.
• Additional effects occur whenever you cast the spell, not just the free casting from Steps of the Fey. (Refreshing step and Taunting Step confirmed, as in PT7 apparently).
• Beguiling Defenses, causing psychic damage
• Bewitching magic at 14 as in PT7 -- "ridiculous in all the best ways".

CELESTIAL

• NEW: from expanded class spell list. Summon Celestial on spell list.
• NEW: Guiding Bolt, Cure wounds and Aid (Aid was not on PT7 list) on subclass list
• You can be "a hired hitman from the gods"
• NEW: Searing Radiance at 14 now can apply to an ally.

FIEND

• Magical weapons no longer pass your damage resitance (in reference to Fiendish Resilience at 10?)
• "tankiness" seen in BG3 is also here: Dark One's Blessing seems completely rewritten, as it was described in the Design Note of the PT7.

GREAT OLD ONE

• NEW: Summon Aberration might be a version of the Mind Flayer (an option in the Summon Abberation spell)
• when you do damage, you can do psychic.
• Psychic Spells for enchantment/illusion without Verbal/Somatic (but you still need Material); damage may be Psychic. Clairvoyant Combatant can be a battle of wills (focusing damage to one target -- a nod to AD&D psionic battles). Eldritch Hex also as in PT7.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Rats.

Well, overwhelming odds you have to outmaneuver has worked as a challenge at times. I know not every fight has to be to the death either…

I just don’t understand the need for more glitz when PCs are already curb stomping monsters…I guess it’s going it with more flair or something

It has to do with player focus nowadays I believe. What is more important to players. And I suspect the tension and fear of your character dying has become much less of a motivator for play than all kinds of other things. Creating an interesting character with a history and desires and seeing them progress and advance throughout a story has become more important. Working with other players in harmony to solve interesting problems has become more important. Playing the tactical board game and figuring out how to win has become more important.

But "keep your character from dying" just isn't as much of a concern or an interesting thing to experience for a lot of players anymore. So the need for more deadly monsters to up your chances of seeing your PC killed is not actually necessary for a large swathe of the population I don't think. Sure, players want antagonists that they can go up against to create interesting fights and stuff, but the expectation and fun is in the tactics and progress of the fight you will eventually end up completing (to then move on to the next challenge in the game), and not the chance of being removed from it.

In many ways these later editions of D&D combat are merely mirroring the trends in modern board gaming. Board gaming in the 1900s was oftentimes about eliminating your opponents from the game, like for instance Monopoly, or Diplomacy. Once you lost, you got up from the table and walked away, leaving the remaining players to continue playing and having fun, while you sat in the corner depressed and waiting around for the game to hopefully end. Whereas in modern board gaming, the trend is to keep everyone involved in the game through to the end, with everyone being allowed to keep building scores until some end point the game chooses to stop, at which point scores are compared. This method keeps players more invested in what is happening the entire time, keep giving them a chance to come from behind, and doesn't force anyone to go off and sit on their hands doing absolutely nothing and not having fun.

Which is exactly what we see in modern RPGs. Eliminating characters from the game is no longer the point in playing for a lot of people, because it just means the player has to sit on their hands and do nothing until the next chance to make a new character and get re-introduced. It's boring, it's sad, and it isn't actually necessary towards making an enjoyable game.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It has to do with player focus nowadays I believe. What is more important to players. And I suspect the tension and fear of your character dying has become much less of a motivator for play than all kinds of other things. Creating an interesting character with a history and desires and seeing them progress and advance throughout a story has become more important. Working with other players in harmony to solve interesting problems has become more important. Playing the tactical board game and figuring out how to win has become more important.

But "keep your character from dying" just isn't as much of a concern or an interesting thing to experience for a lot of players anymore. So the need for more deadly monsters to up your chances of seeing your PC killed is not actually necessary for a large swathe of the population I don't think. Sure, players want antagonists that they can go up against to create interesting fights and stuff, but the expectation and fun is in the tactics and progress of the fight you will eventually end up completing (to then move on to the next challenge in the game), and not the chance of being removed from it.

In many ways these later editions of D&D combat are merely mirroring the trends in modern board gaming. Board gaming in the 1900s was oftentimes about eliminating your opponents from the game, like for instance Monopoly, or Diplomacy. Once you lost, you got up from the table and walked away, leaving the remaining players to continue playing and having fun, while you sat in the corner depressed and waiting around for the game to hopefully end. Whereas in modern board gaming, the trend is to keep everyone involved in the game through to the end, with everyone being allowed to keep building scores until some end point the game chooses to stop, at which point scores are compared. This method keeps players more invested in what is happening the entire time, keep giving them a chance to come from behind, and doesn't force anyone to go off and sit on their hands doing absolutely nothing and not having fun.

Which is exactly what we see in modern RPGs. Eliminating characters from the game is no longer the point in playing for a lot of people, because it just means the player has to sit on their hands and do nothing until the next chance to make a new character and get re-introduced. It's boring, it's sad, and it isn't actually necessary towards making an enjoyable game.

No I don’t plan on dying. I plan on killing!

But put up a fight and make me wonder about the outcome!

Or let me run when outmatched!

While sitting around waiting for a raise dead spell is not fun, nearly automatic wins…does not need to be the only other option.

Nothing to lose is no fun for me…

But I won’t say more than that. You are not wrong. But marketing does not always beat my preferences into submission either…

 

[DEFCON 1]

No I don’t plan on dying. I plan on killing!

But put up a fight and make me wonder about the outcome!

Or let me run when outmatched!

While sitting around waiting for a raise dead spell is not fun, nearly automatic wins…does not need to be the only other option.

Nothing to lose is no fun for me…

But I won’t say more than that. You are not wrong. But marketing does not always beat my preferences into submission either…

Oh, of course! For your personal preferences, you want what you want and there ain't nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, though, it just means that you (or any of us) won't necessarily get what we want "officially" from Wizards of the Coast because our wants and needs are specific to us and not the greater gaming populace that they have to serve.

Which is why I'm all about making the game my own and house ruling or using 3PPs to achieve that. Few of us can rely on WotC to make the exact game we want... the rest of us HAVE to be willing to shape the game in our own image. That's the only way we are going to be happy with what we are playing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It has to do with player focus nowadays I believe. What is more important to players. And I suspect the tension and fear of your character dying has become much less of a motivator for play than all kinds of other things. Creating an interesting character with a history and desires and seeing them progress and advance throughout a story has become more important. Working with other players in harmony to solve interesting problems has become more important. Playing the tactical board game and figuring out how to win has become more important.

But "keep your character from dying" just isn't as much of a concern or an interesting thing to experience for a lot of players anymore. So the need for more deadly monsters to up your chances of seeing your PC killed is not actually necessary for a large swathe of the population I don't think. Sure, players want antagonists that they can go up against to create interesting fights and stuff, but the expectation and fun is in the tactics and progress of the fight you will eventually end up completing (to then move on to the next challenge in the game), and not the chance of being removed from it.

In many ways these later editions of D&D combat are merely mirroring the trends in modern board gaming. Board gaming in the 1900s was oftentimes about eliminating your opponents from the game, like for instance Monopoly, or Diplomacy. Once you lost, you got up from the table and walked away, leaving the remaining players to continue playing and having fun, while you sat in the corner depressed and waiting around for the game to hopefully end. Whereas in modern board gaming, the trend is to keep everyone involved in the game through to the end, with everyone being allowed to keep building scores until some end point the game chooses to stop, at which point scores are compared. This method keeps players more invested in what is happening the entire time, keep giving them a chance to come from behind, and doesn't force anyone to go off and sit on their hands doing absolutely nothing and not having fun.

Which is exactly what we see in modern RPGs. Eliminating characters from the game is no longer the point in playing for a lot of people, because it just means the player has to sit on their hands and do nothing until the next chance to make a new character and get re-introduced. It's boring, it's sad, and it isn't actually necessary towards making an enjoyable game.

It is, however, sometimes necessary of you want a setting that makes sense as anything other than a backdrop for performative RP. And exploring an imaginary world that feels like a real place outside your party's own existence can make an enjoyable game too.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Oh, of course! For your personal preferences, you want what you want and there ain't nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, though, it just means that you (or any of us) won't necessarily get what we want "officially" from Wizards of the Coast because our wants and needs are specific to us and not the greater gaming populace that they have to serve.

Which is why I'm all about making the game my own and house ruling or using 3PPs to achieve that. Few of us can rely on WotC to make the exact game we want... the rest of us HAVE to be willing to shape the game in our own image. That's the only way we are going to be happy with what we are playing.

The most fun I had with 5e was when my friend made unbeatable (head on)challenges and we figured a way around and ultimately ran to live to fight another day!

I just don’t want the default too easy. I know the DM can ratchet things up…which is where we have been. All good…

 

[Micah Sweet]

The most fun I had with 5e was when my friend made unbeatable (head on)challenges and we figured a way around and ultimately ran to live to fight another day!

I just don’t want the default too easy. I know the DM can ratchet things up…which is where we have been. All good…

As @DEFCON 1 suggested, you may have to get used to disappointment from WotC. The default will almost certainly remain at least as easy in 5.5 as it was in 5.0, and I see a good chance it'll get even easier. As was said (my paraphrase), most new players seem to just want to show off their cool PCs to each other as a group activity.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

As @DEFCON 1 suggested, you may have to get used to disappointment from WotC. The default will almost certainly remain at least as easy in 5.5 as it was in 5.0, and I see a good chance it'll get even easier. As was said (my paraphrase), most new players seem to just want to show off their cool PCs to each other as a group activity.

Largely yes.

when Crawford talks about “telling your story” I recoil like a vampire from Italian food.

My pals and I see it as a roleplaying, yes, but also a series of problems and challenges that may interfere with goal attainment. We “usually” accomplish our goals but I don’t want it to be a given.

I think it just requires more system mastery for the DM—-but I know not everyone will want to make the game more difficult. Whatever. It has to have a set point somewhere, ai suppose.

As yo allude to, they want you o please the most people so some longer term players will have to know what they are doing and tinker with challenges.

I don’t want it to make that even harder to do…but we shall see.

 

[Weiley31]

And Rogues are thieves, yet they're not stealing extra attacks or smites or beast companion...

Pact of Chains, Pact of Blade/Thirsting Blade, and Eldritch Smite says hi.

 

[Charlaquin]

Meaning there will be more Wizards with the soldier background than fighters....

To be fair, fighters have a soldier foreground.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But "keep your character from dying" just isn't as much of a concern or an interesting thing to experience for a lot of players anymore. So the need for more deadly monsters to up your chances of seeing your PC killed is not actually necessary for a large swathe of the population I don't think. Sure, players want antagonists that they can go up against to create interesting fights and stuff, but the expectation and fun is in the tactics and progress of the fight you will eventually end up completing (to then move on to the next challenge in the game), and not the chance of being removed from it.

Just as a counter-example, my Dark Souls-themed gothic Snow White game has four players, and I've calibrated encounters to a VERY high level of challenge, and they eke out a narrow win each time, and they're loving it. Interesting fights, sure, but the threat of death is a lot of fun for them. Having failure be an option (even kind of an expectation) in combat is helping them to feel like their abilities and choices have impact, because they could choose otherwise, and by choosing otherwise, die.