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.

 

[mellored]

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.

To be fair, I rarely see a single character die while the rest still play.

It's usually win or lose as a party. Especially if the DM drops a resurrection scroll or 3.

Though it did happened to me the very first time I played D&D (3.5). Rolled initiative, rolled a save, died, sat in a corner the rest of the night. Very unfun and i didn't play again until 4e.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Honestly if someone is getting offended at game rules then said someones are taking said game much too seriously.

Have you seen how so many of take offense and get bristly about so many rules during times like these?

Maybe the focus shouldn't be on the word "offended" and instead offered reasons why people vehemently don't like certain rules, but I don't currently have time to collect and recap what others are saying.

 

[tglassy]

First, you were the one who said people were offended.

Second, the reasons they’re giving is “BeCaUsE sPeLlCaStErS bLaGrUfLiGeM”.

There is no legit reason to be upset the Warlock gets a third attack. Sure, Spirit Shroud adds some decent damage. But it’s a Concentration Spell that uses one of their only two spell slots. If they’re going to use that, they can’t use it to do other things, like Dimension Door out or cast Fireball. Or summon an ally to help with Action Economy. Or any number of other things. It means they’re going to be on the front line with fewer HP, likely less AC, and no Blur spell to help with defense.

It means that if they’re going to be effective on the front lines, they need to use most of their class features to make it so. Grabbing Moderately Armored for Medium Armor and Shields (or that new starter feat). Fiend for Dark Ones Own Luck for the temp HP. Investing in Con, and in the Blade Invocations. Taking spells that shore up combat weaknesses.

Essentially all things a Fighter just gets. You could say “well then just play a fighter.” But I don’t WANT to play a fighter in this case. In this case, I don’t wanna play the guy who is naturally gifted and through discipline and hard work became the best of the best.

I wanna play the weak outcast who was told he would never amount to anything until a Fiend came to him offering to make him the greatest warrior the world had ever seen, so long as he provides service.

I don’t know, I’ve just always loved the idea of the sword wielding warlock.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Of course. My comments are not meant to be all-or-nothing... obviously there will be all types of players that want all types of things (like @Warpiglet-7 said they were hoping for.) I don't deny anyone's desires or needs.

My point was only to try and come to a possible conclusion from the evidence we have seen. And in my opinion there just seems to be much fewer players nowadays (than there were say 30 years ago) who prefer/play D&D as a Survival game. Where it's play-to-avoid-dying. It just doesn't seem that PC Death is as interesting of a result of playing RPGs for a lot of players nowadays than creating characters to follow their story arcs through character progression.

Whether this is due to many players nowadays having come from watching Actual Play shows like CR or Dim20 that tend to be more longform storytelling... or the proliferation of CRPGs like Mass Effect or World of Warcraft, or Skyrim, or Dragon Age that have these long complete story arcs you play through as part of their games and "death" is merely a 20 second pause before you restart the game from where you left off... I think they are all possible influencers on the current culture of play. And I make no judgement on whether that is a good or bad thing, as it can and will be both for all the different types of players out there.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Of course. But like you have already determined for yourself... we often won't be able to get it from WotC and will have to find what we want elsewhere. It is what it is.

 

[Weiley31]

I don't mind if Warlocks end up being the ONLY caster that can get up to three attacks in some form. As mentioned before, Warlocks cheat the system. Fighters still reign as the "martial master" by being able to get Four attacks. The Warlock can't do that outside of "special means" via their Patrons. There's no way they could stand up to an epic legendary person like Beowulf or Aragorn in a martial standard WITHOUT that edge.

Plus, the Warlock is probably the closest thing to a 5E Gish outside of the Eldritch Knight and the Bladesinger.

 

[Kurotowa]

Plus, the Warlock is probably the closest thing to a 5E Gish outside of the Eldritch Knight and the Bladesinger.

The way I see it, the three exist on a spectrum. Eldritch Knight is mostly a martial with a little casting, Bladesinger is mostly a caster with a little weapon skill, and Blade Pact Warlock sits somewhere closer to the middle. Well, that's if Blade Pact is properly designed. And we're not counting the non-arcane classes like Paladin. But you get the idea.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Of course. My comments are not meant to be all-or-nothing... obviously there will be all types of players that want all types of things (like @Warpiglet-7 said they were hoping for.) I don't deny anyone's desires or needs.

My point was only to try and come to a possible conclusion from the evidence we have seen. And in my opinion there just seems to be much fewer players nowadays (than there were say 30 years ago) who prefer/play D&D as a Survival game. Where it's play-to-avoid-dying. It just doesn't seem that PC Death is as interesting of a result of playing RPGs for a lot of players nowadays than creating characters to follow their story arcs through character progression.

Whether this is due to many players nowadays having come from watching Actual Play shows like CR or Dim20 that tend to be more longform storytelling... or the proliferation of CRPGs like Mass Effect or World of Warcraft, or Skyrim, or Dragon Age that have these long complete story arcs you play through as part of their games and "death" is merely a 20 second pause before you restart the game from where you left off... I think they are all possible influencers on the current culture of play. And I make no judgement on whether that is a good or bad thing, as it can and will be both for all the different types of players out there.

Interestingly I am not sure how much has changed in some areas.

1e DMs gave plenty of mulligans or you would be rerollinh characters nearly every session!

Most people want continuity even way back when.

Ultimately many of us want our choices to carry weight.

It probably by degrees…and we are pushing for proportions. At 9th level raise dead is right there. Resurrection and Wish is beyond that…

There are ways to perma die sure…but many ways to avoid it too going way back…

The key is to make people feel like they can lose something. Even if they can ultimately get it back…

 

[Pauln6]

Would it be a sensible compromise to only give the warlock the third attack akin to the War Priest so that it requires a bonus action?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't mind if Warlocks end up being the ONLY caster that can get up to three attacks in some form. As mentioned before, Warlocks cheat the system. Fighters still reign as the "martial master" by being able to get Four attacks. The Warlock can't do that outside of "special means" via their Patrons. There's no way they could stand up to an epic legendary person like Beowulf or Aragorn in a martial standard WITHOUT that edge.

Plus, the Warlock is probably the closest thing to a 5E Gish outside of the Eldritch Knight and the Bladesinger.

In theory, three attacks is fine. In the playtest, they did far too much damage. I know people always harped on the Spirit Shroud, but when I was doing my calculations I consistently avoided adding Spirit Shroud, and the Playtest Bladelock was still better than a fighter who had taken multiple feats to improve their damage, without the need for a single feat. Many of which they could also qualify and get to further increase their damage.

It was absolutely overtuned.

One way of reigning it in was to take away the 3rd attack. That left their damage high, but reasonable, and still made them as much of a warrior as the Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin.

There are other ways to reign in their damage, reducing some of the invocations and making them deal less damage on a hit could also do it.

I don't particularly care whether or not they get a 3rd attack, I am much more concerned with them not absolutely shattering every other damage focused build in the game.