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

Micah Sweet · Sep 30, 2024

Imaro said:
Huh?? Sealing the deal with an entity is exactly what makes a warlock powerful... now before the deal is made is a different story... not being particularly powerful or knowledgeable is exactly why you might make the deal.

This is what I'm saying.

Imaro · Sep 30, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
This is what I'm saying.

And absolutely no one in this thread is arguing against this. What's being argued is whether you should begin at level 1 as an already powerful Warlock or as one still coming into his power. My reading of the tiers of play for both 5e and A5e say it should be the later... so I'll ask for a 3rd time...

Does the design of the A5e warlock align with the narrative A5e presents for what a level 1and level 2 character represents in the default world?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from you on this??

gban007 · Sep 30, 2024

Imaro said:
And absolutely no one in this thread is arguing against this. What's being argued is whether you should begin at level 1 as an already powerful Warlock or as one still coming into his power. My reading of the tiers of play for both 5e and A5e say it should be the later... so I'll ask for a 3rd time...

Does the design of the A5e warlock align with the narrative A5e presents for what a level 1and level 2 character represents in the default world?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from you on this??

I didn't think anyone was arguing that the warlock should start already powerful, just whether they should have had to have chosen their patron at level 1 or not.
A5e could have the patron selected at level 1 or level 3, and neither option would prevent it following the narrative for levels 1 and 2, it is just what it may unlock when selected and whether that makes it powerful or not.
Otherwise it seems a big question to ask of Micah to really get into it, as will come down to how powerful warlock is against the other classes, and how the classes match up against the threats being faced, and whether those threats feel world level of village level as such.
Ultimately I'm ambivalent as to whether level 1 or 3 that patron selected, but can build a case with either that slow coming into power, whether listening to whispers for a couple of levels before making a committed decision, vs making committed decision up front but taking time / experience to realise the full power of the relationship, so that across levels 1, 2 and 3 the power level across both options is the same.

Corinnguard · Sep 30, 2024

Imaro said:
What's being argued is whether you should begin at level 1 as an already powerful Warlock or as one still coming into his power. My reading of the tiers of play for both 5e and A5e say it should be the later... so I'll ask for a 3rd time...

At 1st level, the warlock is still just coming into their power. They have just taken the next step by making a bargain with an otherworldly being who has revealed themselves to them and been given a taste of otherworldly power in that form of an eldritch blast and two spells. The otherworldly being promises them more power, but only if they do its bidding on the Material Plane. And for the new warlock to do that means having to leave their home, their former profession and go abroad as an adventurer. For their own protection, the Warlock seeks out and joins a party of fellow adventurers.

Overtime, the warlock becomes more powerful with its' patron's aid.

Does this meet the A5e/5e narrative you were looking for? If so, please sign here on the dotted line...

Now, the pact between otherworldly being and warlock could have been done at 3rd level, but why would the former wait so long to seal the deal? What it's in it for the otherworldly being to do so? The last thing it wants is for its' tool to wise up and leave before the deal has been made, and with some of its' powers are already invested within in it.

I wonder if WoTC looked at the warlock/patron relationship from the patron's point of view. Probably not.

Crimson Longinus · Sep 30, 2024

Chaosmancer said:
None of this is an ad hoc ergo propter hoc. None of it. We aren't saying that the narrative exists because of the mechanics, or that the mechanics exist because of the narrative. That sort of information flow in a single direction doesn't even make sense in this context.

What we are saying is that the narrative can be whatever you want it to be.

I mean, I've made these examples a few times, but I think you aren't quite grasping them. The classical warlock story is the story of Dr. Faust, we both agree with that. Or the story of Robert Johnson. In both these cases, the Devil or Fiend comes to someone and offers them skill and power in exchange for their soul.

- One of the first warlocks I made was Natalie Dumein, a peasant girl who was married into a noble family, so that she qualified to be sacrificed to a demon to continue that noble family's power. She fought back, accidentally freed the demon, who after slaughtering the family forced her into service in exchange for him not slaughtering the rest of her village. This is not a Robert Johnson or Dr. Faust story.

- Another favorite warlock of mine was Corvin. Corvin found a dying, sealed demon, who offered him a deal for power. However, instead of taking the deal, Corvin devoured the Demon and became his own patron, planning on making a cult to empower himself to a full acension into Demon Prince status. This is not a Robert Johnson or Dr. Faust story.

- A great warlock I played was Syreth. On a post-apocalyptic Earth, with magic killing everyone around him, the man who would become Syreth was offered a deal by the Fey. Become the Fiance to a Fey Lady, marry her, and bring the Fey into this new world. His pact was a marriage contract, and his personality and identity were slowly being overwritten to become the Fey Lord of the Crossroads. This is the closest I've gotten to a Dr. Faust or Robert Johnson story, but isn't quite there. Notably, "becoming a Fey Lord" isn't a Warlock ability or mechanic, yet it fit perfectly with that character.

- My most recent warlock was Endymion Lynhart, who was a Celestial Warlock. He had been a theif, and tried to steal a tome from a temple to a Giant Goddess. He was struck dead, but she found him cute and amusing, so she offered him a deal. She'd bring him back from the dead, and he would do as she said. He agreed. This is again, not a Dr. Faust or Robert Johnson story, in fact, raising the dead, post-homous deals, and being an undead are not part of the Warlock story traditionally speaking. But being a Reborn Warlock, I felt it all flowed together quite nicely.

Yes, the root origin mythos is important. But we can play Robert Johnson who made a deal with the Devil at the Crossroads with the 2024 rules. The narrative of that deal still works, even if we don't have Fiendish Vigor as an ability at level 1. Those abilities can inform the narrative, but also.... you can alter them. I could tell a Paladin story, and use the Celestial Warlock to tell it. Because the two aspects have an intentional gap in them. And that gap exists, because all of those characters I've played as Warlocks? None of them were Dr. Faust making a deal for knowledge and magic in exchange for his soul. In fact, I have rarely if ever done the "and in exchange I get your soul" because I find that doesn't have enough narrative impact on the story.

Bunch of cool examples, none of which seem to follow the 5.5 approach of the warlock not knowing the nature of their patron from the get go. So yeah, this clearly illustrates the issue you for some reason seem to be arguing against.

Steampunkette · Sep 30, 2024

Corinnguard said:
I wonder if WoTC looked at the warlock/patron relationship from the patron's point of view. Probably not.

Hah! No, probably not.

No, to me this reads as a top-down mandate with designers having their hands tied by the producers. Someone above their paygrade saying "All the classes need to get their archetypes at level 3" and the designer saying "That doesn't work if we're 'backward compatible'." and the producer saying "It doesn't matter/It's what I want/Just do it."

When I was working in the MMORPG space the number of top-down mandates on designers was hilarious. More than that was the 3-6 months later fallout from most of those decisions. Someone who didn't understand the complex math involved in balancing characters and encounters would have an idea for a new mechanic or power customization method and the powers department would tell them "But that will have X effect you don't intend and make Y happen."

"No, it won't. It will not have X effect. It will not make Y happen." You show them the math, you show them the issues. "Just get it done."

3 months later. "Why is Y happening?! You should have known this was going to happen!"

The guy who got me into MMORPG design -kept- having that problem at Zenimax on Elder Scrolls Online even as a senior game systems designer. It got to the point where he'd write up a quick document outlining the problem, ask the producer to sign it, and when they came back 3-6 months later yelling about the problem he told them about in advance, he'd pull out the design document with their signature on it showing they'd literally signed off on it over his objections.

Usually this kind of thing is in the form of layered power. New items that have 'Unforeseen Interactions' with character abilities or 'Old Gear' that the producer will say "That was two expansions, ago, no one is using that stuff anymore!'. Sometimes it's entire power systems that get layered on top of a whole character. "Borrowed Power" is the WoW design term for that kind of thing because they cycle it out every expansion with a new one. (And the devs get blamed for it not being balanced)

I didn't think I'd see it happen in TTRPG design spaces... but, well. Hasbro and WotC are what they are, in the end.

Corinnguard · Sep 30, 2024

Steampunkette said:
Hah! No, probably not.

No, to me this reads as a top-down mandate with designers having their hands tied by the producers. Someone above their paygrade saying "All the classes need to get their archetypes at level 3" and the designer saying "That doesn't work if we're 'backward compatible'." and the producer saying "It doesn't matter/It's what I want/Just do it."

When I was working in the MMORPG space the number of top-down mandates on designers was hilarious. More than that was the 3-6 months later fallout from most of those decisions. Someone who didn't understand the complex math involved in balancing characters and encounters would have an idea for a new mechanic or power customization method and the powers department would tell them "But that will have X effect you don't intend and make Y happen."

"No, it won't. It will not have X effect. It will not make Y happen." You show them the math, you show them the issues. "Just get it done."

3 months later. "Why is Y happening?! You should have known this was going to happen!"

The guy who got me into MMORPG design -kept- having that problem at Zenimax on Elder Scrolls Online even as a senior game systems designer. It got to the point where he'd write up a quick document outlining the problem, ask the producer to sign it, and when they came back 3-6 months later yelling about the problem he told them about in advance, he'd pull out the design document with their signature on it showing they'd literally signed off on it over his objections.

Usually this kind of thing is in the form of layered power. New items that have 'Unforeseen Interactions' with character abilities or 'Old Gear' that the producer will say "That was two expansions, ago, no one is using that stuff anymore!'. Sometimes it's entire power systems that get layered on top of a whole character. "Borrowed Power" is the WoW design term for that kind of thing.

I didn't think I'd see it happen in TTRPG design spaces... but, well. Hasbro and WotC are what they are, in the end.

Wonderful. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Crimson Longinus · Sep 30, 2024

Corinnguard said:
I wonder if WoTC looked at the warlock/patron relationship from the patron's point of view. Probably not.

That's my biggest issue with this. As a GM I am expected to portray this shadowy entity without knowing who or what they actually are! Like, that is insane, I would outright refuse to do that!

Now easy way to sidestep the issue, and what I expect most groups ending up doing (and why I don't think this will be a big deal in practice,) is the player narratively choosing the patron at the first level, even though they mechanically only choose it at the third. But then again, if that's what we end up doing anyway, and doing it otherwise will cause issues, why not just write the damn rules that way to begin with?

pemerton · Sep 30, 2024

Crimson Longinus said:
what I expect most groups ending up doing (and why I don't think this will be a big deal in practice,) is the player narratively choosing the patron at the first level, even though they mechanically only choose it at the third. But then again, if that's what we end up doing anyway, and doing it otherwise will cause issues, why not just write the damn rules that way to begin with?

Conversely - why write unnecessary rules?

Crimson Longinus · Sep 30, 2024

pemerton said:
Conversely - why write unnecessary rules?

But it is not unnecessary, as it actually helps to avoid potential problems. In this instance trying to do things in the way the new rules suggest, leads to weird places and is liable to cause issues. That experienced people might foresee this and thus do things differently is no defence for the rule being bad in the first place; that's Oberoni fallacy stuff. Just write the bloody rules so that they actually work, and do not expect the players to fix them! Doing otherwise is just unfriendly to newbies.

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

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Imaro

Legend

gban007

Hero

Corinnguard

Hero

Crimson Longinus

Legend

Steampunkette

A5e 3rd Party Publisher!

Corinnguard

Hero

Crimson Longinus

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Crimson Longinus

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles