D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Warlock Pacts, Patrons, and Iniate Feats

[gyor]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131108

Just as I thought it works. Most features come from your Patron, but some come from your interaction between pact choice and patron, and one baseline from your pact, plus some universal Warlock Spells.

Patrons will be mainly extraplanar for now, stuff like Fiends, Far Realmsian, Fey, stuff like that. Expansions for stuff like Dark or Sorceror King pacts aka material plane pacts may come later.

 

[Li Shenron]

Maybe I am not understanding it right, but that sounds a little complicated to me: does a Warlock choose both a pact and a patron (or a patron type)?

Mearls' article seemed quite clear: the pact is the Warlock's subclass. Choose a book pact warlock to lean more towards spellcasting, a chain pact warlock to have a powerful minion, or a blade pact warlock to lean more towards fighting.

But now talking about patrons, can someone be e.g. all of the following:

- a book pact warlock with fiendish patron
- a chain pact warlock with fiendish patron
- a book pact warlock with archfey patron
- a chain pact warlock with archfey patron

It might sound similar to a Cleric choosing both a domain and a deity, but at the moment the choice of deity won't have any mechanical consequences (besides the fact that presumably each deity only has some domains, so you can only pick a domain that is supported by your deity) in the sense that while the choice of domain carries bonus stuff, there is no additional features from the choice of deity itself.

But Rodney's article almost sound like instead the Warlock will have two choices both of which have mechanical consequences. One will be the subclass but maybe the other only slightly modifies it? Or maybe each subclass will be already a combination of pact+patron?

Anyway all this tells me one thing for sure: that the Warlock has enough width, that bundling it under the Mage class was going to be too restrictive.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Maybe I am not understanding it right, but that sounds a little complicated to me: does a Warlock choose both a pact and a patron (or a patron type)?

Doesn't sound complicated to me.

It might sound similar to a Cleric choosing both a domain and a deity, but at the moment the choice of deity won't have any mechanical consequences (besides the fact that presumably each deity only has some domains, so you can only pick a domain that is supported by your deity) in the sense that while the choice of domain carries bonus stuff, there is no additional features from the choice of deity itself.

Yeah, very similar to choosing a domain and deity. The domains were very important mechanically in 3e and this sounds very similar.

My conclusion, it's about as complicated as the 3e cleric at level 1. In other words: a lot of options, but not complicated.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, very similar to choosing a domain and deity.

But I tried to say that choosing a deity doesn't change your PC features... Presumably choosing a deity restricts which domains you can choose, but it's the domain which gives you additional spells, channeling power etc.

Instead, the Q&A articles clearly says that the choice of patron grants warlocks most of their unique class features.
I previously thought that instead it was the choice of pact which granted those, i.e. pact = subclass, now it sounds like patron = subclass.
However, also the pact changes your features ("comes with a baseline benefit due to the nature of the pact") and then "combines with the things you get from your patron".

So if I'm reading this right, this is quite unique compared to all other classes.

(BTW by "complicated" I meant "unclear")

 

[Falling Icicle]

I notice that they keep using the term "spells" instead of invocations. I hope this doesn't mean a warlock is going to have spells and spells per day just like a wizard or bard.

 

[Klaus]

I notice that they keep using the term "spells" instead of invocations. I hope this doesn't mean a warlock is going to have spells and spells per day just like a wizard or bard.

I suspect the warlock will use spells, but in a spellcasting manner different from other classes (perhaps casting a very small number of spells at will?).

 

[Minigiant]

Anyway all this tells me one thing for sure: that the Warlock has enough width, that bundling it under the Mage class was going to be too restrictive.

That's probably why the Universal Mage may be gone as it would need 3 points of decision to make a blade using, fey powered, warlock. 1 choice too many for the design team.


So the warlock is it's own class to move it to 2 choices.

Well at least I know I can be a Summer Knight or Winter Knight.

 

[Li Shenron]

I suspect the warlock will use spells, but in a spellcasting manner different from other classes (perhaps casting a very small number of spells at will?).

This!

If warlock's magic produces effects that work like spells (after casting them), it might be better to just call them "spells". Or, they could also be called "invocations" in the class text, but there is probably no need to create invocations that are separate from spells, and a lot of spells already used by other classes can be used for the warlock list.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It has occurred to me that invocations could now be certain spells cast at will.

Thus it's likely a pact to the Belial or Fierna the Lords of Phlegethos which is the fiery layer of the 9 Hells of Baator, would potentially give you the ability to cast Burning Hands (all varieties) and Fireball (Book only) at-will. And many of them would probably be fine as at-wills since spell damage doesn't scale with level anymore.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm disappointed they didn't reconsider remaking the initiate feats, it is a wasted opportunity. What if they allowed you to 1) learn a spell and use it once per day 2) bypass ability requirements to multiclass into that class 3) become an extra slot and spell known once you are inside that class. I doubt that would make them very overpowered.