D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews

Chaosmancer · Sep 28, 2024

Steampunkette said:
The issue is that it's an important narrative element of a character being moved from level 1 to level 3.

This isn't like a Fighter deciding what sort of Training they want to pursue. This entity is the -SOURCE- of the Warlock's power. The thing they make a deal with at level 1. Right out of the gate this narrative conceit should apply to shape the character's existence.

Moving it to level 3 turns level 1 "Warlocks" into "Cultists". Generic AF servants of "Something".

It's the same issue with Sorcerers, honestly. Clerics, too. And Paladins. Wizards not so much because even if their specialization of spell school is at level 3, they're still the "Spellbook Casters" at level 1.

EVERY Warlock is now "Mysterious Whisper"
EVERY Sorcerer is now "Where's this Magic Coming From?"
EVERY Cleric is now a "Religious Initiate"
EVERY Paladin is now someone who prays to cast spells, fights, cures with a touch, and later on eventually gets around to swearing an oath of some kind to some ideal, maybe. Who knows. They might just never do that part.

Hell, they might wind up "Swearing an Oath" to a magic school for Wizards, eventually. After all: Every class gets their archetype at 3 and cross-class archetypes are going to be a thing! Who cares if they're channeling divinity or praying, it's -basically- the same as wizardry, right?

Yeah. It's also a REALLY DUMB DESIGN CHOICE for Paladins, too.

Pretty much, yeah! Or something less drastic like Oath of the Ancients or Oath of Loyalty or Oath of Something Else that isn't a complete alignment shift, sure.

That is a CHOICE you are making. You are insisting on this interpretation just because you don't get the extra special powers of special being until 3rd level. But I can play my paladin as having their oath at level 1, I can play my cleric as devoted to their god at level 1, I can know the origin of my sorcerers powers at level 1. It just doesn't have a mechanical impact.

Steampunkette said:
I have a titanic "Meh" over your statement of other people's character concepts being "Weak". This is a game children play. The point isn't "This is always going to happen" it's "This is totally a thing that can happen which shows the inherent weakness of shifting the pact and the patron 3 levels apart"

It is only an inherent weakness if you MAKE it one. I'm literally playing an Rogue right now, level 2 just achieved, who I know and have been playing as an Arcane Trickster. I took magic initiate, I have magic and that is my path. I don't need to be an Arcane Trickster at level 1.

And you are treating this like it is somehow unique to these classes.

Druids are just as religious as Clerics, so we should have druid circles at level 1. Rage is inherent to Barbariand's story, and an totem Barbarian is very different from a Zealot who worships the gods, so they should be level 1, Fighters and Rogues can have psychic powers? That should be level 1... you can make this argument for literally every single class in the game.

Steampunkette said:
Yeah! And so is the patron just not being a thing. SO POWERFUL. So important! Being able to be a really bad "Mage of Strixhaven" instead of having a Patron is a really good tradeoff for the design choice of the narrative!

You seem to be completely convinced of a thing they have never said they are going to do. Warlocks are Mages of Strixhaven. They are Warlocks. By moving the Patron to later levels, you have opened stories. I can play someone who starts with a Fiend pact, but redeems themselves and becomes a celestial pact. I can't do that with level 1 pacts, without special dispensation from the DM.

Steampunkette said:
Nah. They should've made your Patron your level 1 choice instead of Invocations, moved those to 2, and used something else for the Archetype, is what I'm saying. If they DESPERATELY want to make archetypes interchangeable and all the classes gain their archetypes at level 3, Patrons shouldn't be the archetype.

No, they don't desperately want that. You are merely convinced they want that. Nothing anyone has said has pointed that they are even reconsidering the idea. They have never once stated they made everything level 3 so they can make swappable archetypes.

You've lost nothing, except what you are throwing away by choice.

Steampunkette · Sep 28, 2024

Imaro said:
Yes and I can't pick my wizard school or paladin subclass until 3rd level... how is this any different? Tiers of play are still a thing... want to play in a higher tier... start at a higher level. This opens up the pre-hero play of the Warlock... if it starts at 1st level... where do we play the pre-heto narrative at? We don't its taken away as an option.

Wizards have spellbooks at level 1, and a wizard being the nerd caster has always been their narrative.

Paladins are another great example of why this design decision being forced into every class build is a bad one. See my previous post.

Chaosmancer said:
You must have a different copy of the book than I do. I went and checked the entry for Warlock, and no where did it say "And Wo! Never shall ye tell your player of the nature of their patron! Never shall they know til level 3! Always a mystery it must be!!"

Man, it's almost like the book has a specific line in the text which makes a declaration that defines how the pact works and you don't need a separately over-dramatic line telling you "Never tell your players what their patron is"...

Chaosmancer said:
Yeah, sure, it says " The entity is a voice in the shadows—its identity unclear—but its boon to you is concrete" in the flavor text of pact magic... but taking that to mean you literally cannot know the identity of the being you made a deal with is just as supported by that statement as by saying your patron can only communicate as a voice from the shadows, and can never communicate via writings in a strange tome, or visions painted against the starry sky.

This might shock and amaze you, but not -everyone- plays D&D. I know! It's insane. And people who don't play D&D but pick up this book as their first introduction to it, might just read what the book says and go "Oh. That's how this works. I guess I'll just go with that." and move on from there. (This is especially likely with D&D24 being the fastest selling D&D thus far)

BIZARRE, right? That people might read the words in the book and follow the mandates provided?

Chaosmancer said:
And since I'm pretty sure if I asked my DM "Hey, can my patron communicate to me via pictograms formed in on the hilt of this ancient knife?" they aren't going to say "sorry, DnD 2024 is very clear. Your patron can only be a voice in the shadows, nothing else"

Cool for you! Cool for me, too. And my players. And a bunch of other people who have been playing for a while and finagle the story to fit their concepts.

But if you've never met a DM, before, who isn't comfortable fluffing things out in different directions, I dunno what to tell you, friend. I've had players at my tables play "Werewolves" by just giving them Barbarians and telling them "Your Rage is a Werewolf Shift". And I once played a "Telekinetic with a Knife" that was actually a Barbarian with a greataxe described as a frilly dainty girl. Her d12 HD was telekinetic shields, her 20 Strength was Telekinesis lifting rocks, etc.

But I've also had DMs outright tell me "No, that's not happening" to far less extreme narrative fluffing of characters. This design structure? Is going to make Warlocks narratively weaker. Paladins, too. And Clerics. Sorcerers.

Micah Sweet · Sep 28, 2024

Imaro said:
Yes and I can't pick my wizard school or paladin subclass until 3rd level... how is this any different? Tiers of play are still a thing... want to play in a higher tier... start at a higher level. This opens up the pre-hero play of the Warlock... if it starts at 1st level... where do we play the pre-heto narrative at? We don't its taken away as an option.

Paladins should swear their Oath at level 1, and as for wizards, their cool powers aren't based on what their subclass represents.

Steampunkette · Sep 28, 2024

Chaosmancer said:
That is a CHOICE you are making. You are insisting on this interpretation just because you don't get the extra special powers of special being until 3rd level. But I can play my paladin as having their oath at level 1, I can play my cleric as devoted to their god at level 1, I can know the origin of my sorcerers powers at level 1. It just doesn't have a mechanical impact.

Again, this isn't about how -I- will play the characters in D&D24. Because as noted earlier in the thread: I won't be playing D&D24. I'll be over in A5e having a blast.

This is me, as a game designer, saying "This is a bad design choice for these reasons."

Chaosmancer said:
It is only an inherent weakness if you MAKE it one. I'm literally playing an Rogue right now, level 2 just achieved, who I know and have been playing as an Arcane Trickster. I took magic initiate, I have magic and that is my path. I don't need to be an Arcane Trickster at level 1.

Rogues aren't defined by their archetypes. Rogues are defined by being sneaky little blighters who get sneak attack. Their archetypes give them a new and interesting way of doing those things and represent training and gained skill which is great. (Though, honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to giving EVERYONE their archetypes at level 1, as it makes more sense than splitting out pacts and oaths and stuff to 3rd)

Warlocks get their power from a specific entity. And as a design, moving that entity to 3rd level is a bad design decision. It's great that you, personally, don't have an issue with this. But your arguments to support it have been "Other classes don't have this problem" and "You can fluff it!"

Neither of which is the design problems inherent to -this- class. Which is why I brought up this class and it's design.

Chaosmancer said:
And you are treating this like it is somehow unique to these classes.

Yes. It is unique to specific classes because specific classes have a narrative built around a single aspect of their character being -the- defining aspect of who they are, what they do, and how they get their power.

A fighter has the power of Sword. At level 3 they can be a Champion and be better at Sword. But at level 1? Sword.

A warlock has a patron that gives them magic from the get-go. That patron is an important narrative element and making the default a split to 3rd level breaks apart that narrative element.

Same with a Paladin's Oath or a Sorcerer's Bloodline.

Chaosmancer said:
Druids are just as religious as Clerics, so we should have druid circles at level 1. Rage is inherent to Barbariand's story, and an totem Barbarian is very different from a Zealot who worships the gods, so they should be level 1, Fighters and Rogues can have psychic powers? That should be level 1... you can make this argument for literally every single class in the game.

Sure. So let's move all Archetypes to level 1 instead of level 3.

It'd make a lot more sense that way if that's the way you'd prefer it done.

Though I'd argue it's a stronger argument for Paladin/Sorcerer/Warlock than most any other class since their Oath/Bloodline/Patron is where they -get- their power.

Alternatively keep the Archetypes at 3rd and move the Oath/Bloodline/Patron to level 1 as more of a ribbon and make the Archetype into a different narrative-mechanical element.

Chaosmancer said:
You seem to be completely convinced of a thing they have never said they are going to do. Warlocks are Mages of Strixhaven. They are Warlocks. By moving the Patron to later levels, you have opened stories. I can play someone who starts with a Fiend pact, but redeems themselves and becomes a celestial pact. I can't do that with level 1 pacts, without special dispensation from the DM.

It's almost like I recognize a trend of intentionality in their statements and actions over the course of several years culminating into a fairly well received product that they can carry forward with their new "One size fits all" archetypes at identical levels across all classes function...

Weird how that works. It's almost like they said it's a thing they wanted to do, and then they did it, and then they made changes to make it easier to do in the future...

But it's PROBABLY just a coincidence, sure.

Chaosmancer said:
No, they don't desperately want that. You are merely convinced they want that. Nothing anyone has said has pointed that they are even reconsidering the idea. They have never once stated they made everything level 3 so they can make swappable archetypes.

Uh huh. Yup. I'm just the crazy cat lady over here being wrong about everything!

Surely this will NEVER HAPPEN and is not -remotely- a part of their design process.

Chaosmancer said:
You've lost nothing, except what you are throwing away by choice.

Which is D&D24. Whole cloth.

Imaro · Sep 28, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
Paladins should swear their Oath at level 1, and as for wizards, their cool powers aren't based on what their subclass represents.

Why... why should Paladins swear their oath at level 1?

As to your second point is this discussion about cool powers or narrative? You've shifted goalposts.

Micah Sweet · Sep 28, 2024

Imaro said:
Why... why should Paladins swear their oath at level 1?

As to your second point is this discussion about cool powers or narrative? You've shifted goalposts.

The narrative is that paladins get their cool powers from their Oaths, yet they inexplicably possess said powers beforehand.

The two are in fact linked. Goal posts respected as far as I'm concerned.

Imaro · Sep 28, 2024

Steampunkette said:
Eh.

You can always do that option with the O5e or A5e Warlock because while the structure gives you the power it's up to you and your DM to decide who that power comes from and how it all works out. It's a thing people do, sometimes, with mysterious figure NPC Patrons and honestly go for it, it works.

It's the D&D 2024 Warlock that says "This is the ONLY WAY IT WORKS".

No it doesnt... it says if you want to skip the narrative of a Warlock solidifying their deal and knowledge of their patron start at 3rd level. 2024 aligns this with the tiers and standardizes this across all classes which is both good game design and narratively cohesive.⁹

Steampunkette said:
Now instead of it being an option, it's the default for everyone, no exceptions. And not only is it the default, the class is structured so that doing it the other way can really mess things up at 3rd level. It also makes all Warlocks below level 3 mechanically identical with no flavor based on the kind of magic they have. No longer do you start out with any kind of difference between an Old One or a Fiend in what they do. You don't even get your themed spell list 'til 3 so you're LITERALLY the same mechanical structure as any other Warlock regardless of who, or how, they made their pact.

Which kinda sucks.

The exception is to start at 3rd level. Simple and elegant.

Also your assertion that all Warlocks are identical is factually incorrect. You are choosing the spells you have access to... unless you are claiming that every Warlock in every game has to choose the exact same spells at level 1... are you?

Steampunkette said:
Also there's the whole Cross-Class archetypes issue which will result in people only ever having "Mysterious Voice" patron and then they're off to Wizard School to be really bad Wizards. And, conversely, Wizards getting Pacts with Devils, Celestials, Fey, Genies, and Old Gods as a distinct possibility.

The latter of which takes the entire narrative conceit of Warlocks and just gives it away.

Which is fine as an OPTION. But not as the default. At least not to me.

This isn't a current thing...

Steampunkette said:
Wyll didn't sell his soul to some "Mysterious Entity" to save Baldur's Gate. He sold it to a Devil in exchange for Warlock Powers knowing exactly what the cost was. And the weight and drama of that decision is what drives a lot of his characterization and character interactions. The same sort of themes carry through in the vast majority of media and historical literature.

Yes and if you want to be Wyll
Start at 3rd level... you like that narrative, I get it and 5e gives you a way to start with it.

Steampunkette said:
There are -some- stories where people are making a deal and don't know who it's with... But the vast majority of stories involving a pact with a devil make the people involved really, incredibly, blatantly obvious because it's a morality tale.

So you want everyone shoehorned into one identity? Otherwise you are admitting their are others... why shouldn't they be playable along with the one you prefer?

Steampunkette said:
Stingy Jack didn't make a deal with a "Mysterious Entity" to turn itself into a coin then stuff the mysterious entity into his pocket next to a silver cross to keep him there for a year and a day. And when he died it wasn't a mysterious entity that threw a single coal from hell's fires to him to light his way in the dark as he wandered the Earth forever after.

You ALWAYS have the choice of defining the type of being you make the pact with in O5e and A5e. That isn't something D&D24 has somehow "Gained".

Didn't say it was... but the fact that you can begin the game with an air of mystery around your patron and later discover who or what it is... thats what 2024 had provided.

Steampunkette said:
Mages of Strixhaven is a specific setting based off a Magic: the Gathering property. But the thrust of the argument isn't "Mages of Strixhaven is now the default setting!" it's that Mages of Strixhaven was a test case for community engagement for cross-class archetyping that was received positively enough that they're almost certainly going to make it a "Thing" going forward.

When was this setting published...regardless it's not core so it may be an option in the future... so what ignore it if you don't like it and don't use it for your character if you don't like it... but if others want or use it why does that affect you?

Steampunkette said:
And based on what came out of Strixhaven it's clear they're utterly uninterested in giving a 2/2 flying frog fart about the Warlock's theme or narrative in their actions.

By making all the classes share the same levels for their archetypes they're trying to set things up to stretch out their writing by instead of making a Warlock Patron and a Wizard School and a Sorcerer Bloodline a single "Generic Magic Thing" that all three are going to be able to take part in.

And yet they are all different mechanically
... good game design.

Steampunkette said:
"You get to learn at third level!" is not a great argument when the problem raised is that it's being obfuscated for the first two levels which strips out the class's narrative elements to shuffle them around in favor of a homogenization of power across classes across D&D24.

It is when that obfuscation opens up numerous other play opportunities that didn't exist previously.

Steampunkette said:
No one is saying it's the "Only Valid" way. But it is an IMPORTANT way. And should probably be the default way because of the structure of the stories that it is calling upon being structured that way.

Huh? It should be default because what now??

Steampunkette said:
Trying to shoehorn the 3rd level mechanical mandate into the class takes away an important narrative element at 1st level and applies a "One Size Fits All" mysterious figure.

Again no it opens up new narratives overall for the class.

Steampunkette said:
Honestly, if they wanted to do that they should've taken away Patrons as Archetype choices and instead made Pact Boons into Archetypes and Patrons into 1st level functions.

Instead of an Invocation at level 1 you pick your patron to gain a minor ability and an increased Spell List. THEN you'd get Invocations at level 2. THEN you'd get an Archetype at level 3 which is a Pact Boon like Pact of the Blade or Pact of the Tome or whatever.

No. The tempter and corrupted archetype Patrons who work from the shadows and offer a taste of power to seduce you is not served by this at all... you're trying to narrow the archetype to fit what you prefer

Steampunkette said:
That would've made VASTLY more narrative sense to try and keep the Warlock in the wheelhouse of your Fausts and Johnnys.

But they decided to take the Pact Boons and make them Invocations for some unfathomable reason and give Warlocks a "Once per long rest you can get spells back with 1 minute instead of 1 hour!" mechanic that I despise. If the party's going to hang out for any length of time from 1 minute to 10 minutes to 1 hour then it's probably not super important that it only be 1 minute instead of 1 hour so why not just take the short rest?

Anyway. Yeah. They really messed up Warlocks is what I'm saying. They took away the flavor of them in favor of bland mechanics and they're working to make it so you can have a level 20 Warlock who doesn't -actually- have a Patron of any narrative weight, or a level 20 Wizard who has a Warlock Patron.

Nah they didn't really mess them up, they have more ans more different flavor than previously.

Imaro · Sep 28, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
The narrative is that paladins get their cool powers from their Oaths, yet they inexplicably possess said powers beforehand.

No they have powers outside their oaths... so that's not in fact THE narrative.

Micah Sweet said:
The two are in fact linked. Goal posts respected as far as I'm concerned.

No they aren't... narrative and identities are only linked to cool powers because you prefer that particular relationship but they are separate considerations... you can have cool powers and no/bad/good narrative identity... however the goalposts were moved by you

Micah Sweet · Sep 28, 2024

Imaro said:
No they have powers outside their oaths... so that's not in fact THE narrative.

No they aren't... narrative and identities are only linked to cool powers because you prefer that particular relationship but they are separate considerations... you can have cool powers and no/bad/good narrative identity... however the goalposts were moved by you

Then where do the cool powers come from, if not the Oath? Wanting them really hard? What kind of narrative is that?

Imaro · Sep 28, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
Then where do the cool powers come from, if not the Oath? Wanting them really hard? What kind of narrative is that?

I think there can be multiple narratives for where a paladins pre-oarh powers arise from... part of roleplaying can even be a paladin wrestling with this if they are unsure of their calling...

These first 3 levels give someone the ability to play archetypes coming into their power and there is no set narrative for that .

D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews

Chaosmancer

Legend

Steampunkette

A5e 3rd Party Publisher!

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Steampunkette

A5e 3rd Party Publisher!

Imaro

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Imaro

Legend

Imaro

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Imaro

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles