Unearthed Arcana June Unearthed Arcana: Druid Shepherd, Fighter Cavalier, and Paladin of Conquest

The latest Unearthed Arcana from Mearls and Crawford revisits four subclasses from earlier UA articles. "Part of the fun of playtesting is seeing how feedback and play can push a design in new directions. In this month’s Unearthed Arcana, we revisit class material that appeared in previous installments: four subclasses for various classes, along with Eldritch Invocations for the warlock. This material was all popular, and the revisions to it were driven by feedback that thousands of you provided in surveys. The updated subclasses are the druid’s Circle of the Shepherd, the fighter’s Cavalier, the paladin’s Oath of Conquest, and the warlock’s Celestial (formerly known as the Undying Light). One of the main pieces of feedback we got about the Eldritch Invocations is that most players didn’t want them exclusive to particular Otherworldly Patron options, so we’ve opened them up to more warlocks, tweaked them, and cut the least popular ones."

​

 

[Mephista]

Maddening/relentless hex don't specify what "cursed by a warlock feature" means. Don't want to see DM/players fighting over this.

It pretty much lists the existing curses warlocks have access to, with room for future curses. Hex, Sign of Ill Omen (cast bestow curse) and Hexblade's Curse are all able to be removed with Remove Curse as well. The only other spell that can be considered a curse is Geas, which warlocks sadly don't get

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Why not? Youre comparing long rests to short rests.

Hang on, I forgot you don't police the adventuring day in your campaigns.

Ahh, yet more "you're doing it wrong" to defend the MMO grind of 5e's crappy default expectation of time wasting trash fights. How does your v-tude not explode when your PC's experience 6-8 significant encounters a day in the wilderness? In towns? How the do villagers live their lives in such monster filled hell holes? How do you justify 2 perfectly spaced hour-long naps while raiding an enemy compound?

5E got a lot right, but the demand for 6+ speedbump chump battles is by far the worst aspect of the game. Anyone wanting to run an organic or narrative game better just accept it doesnt work without a grotesque amount of DM fiat or a gamist rest mechanic. Just because it's a design expectation doesnt make it a GOOD one.

 

[Corwin]

In the particular case of Hex, it seems that Flamestrike and Corwin would resolve it differently than JeremyCrawford, Yunru, or Hemlock would.

You make assumptions on how anyone (other than you) would resolve anything. Doubly so given what I posted was "what's written in the book" in a discussion on a rules forum. Not personal musings a rulings/personal-campaign-storytime forum. More egregiously, you didn't even bother to ask any of us how we would rule on any example.

 

[Corwin]

Ahh, yet more "you're doing it wrong" to defend the MMO grind of 5e's crappy default expectation of time wasting trash fights. How does your v-tude not explode when your PC's experience 6-8 significant encounters a day in the wilderness? In towns? How the do villagers live their lives in such monster filled hell holes? How do you justify 2 perfectly spaced hour-long naps while raiding an enemy compound?

5E got a lot right, but the demand for 6+ speedbump chump battles is by far the worst aspect of the game. Anyone wanting to run an organic or narrative game better just accept it doesnt work without a grotesque amount of DM fiat or a gamist rest mechanic. Just because it's a design expectation doesnt make it a GOOD one.

You choice of words here comes across strongly hinting at you being unhappy with 5e. Might I offer to help you find a more fitting system/edition? Or perhaps offer ways to alter 5e until it better suits your preferences?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I wrote:

TL;DR: the fact that WotC defines many abilities in terms of gamist jargon ("as a bonus action, you may...") instead of in in-world, roleplaying terms ("by making a magical gesture, as a bonus action you may...") creates unnecessary ambiguity, which must be resolved by the DM. In the particular case of Hex, it seems that Flamestrike and Corwin would resolve it differently than JeremyCrawford, Yunru, or Hemlock would.

Then Corwin wrote:

You make assumptions on how anyone (other than you) would resolve anything. Doubly so given what I posted was "what's written in the book" in a discussion on a rules forum. Not personal musings a rulings/personal-campaign-storytime forum. More egregiously, you didn't even bother to ask any of us how we would rule on any example.

My response:

Wait, so now you're getting upset because I take your words at face value when you write:

As to that...

The spell says: *snip*

Given the original casting is also a bonus action, I see no evidence that you avoid any of the original requirements of the spell (i.e., the components) when placing a subsequent curse. It definitely does not state that you get to transfer the hex subtly, nor free of the requisite components. Only that you can curse a new creature. The same functionally as the original casting, at the expense of the same action type. For what any of that's worth, if you care to get pedantic, or technical, about it.

You're seriously telling me that I have sinned against you in assuming that you probably meant what you wrote ("it seems that... Corwin would...), and that I should have separately asked you, "So, Corwin, how would you rule?" just to ascertain that you didn't have some other, contrary ruling actually in mind? Not that you've actually TOLD anyone you'd make any such contrary ruling--you just got offended that I didn't double-check just in case you might.

To you, that's "egregious"?

Just, wow.

 

[Corwin]

Wait, so now you're getting upset because I take your words at face value when you write:

I even went out of my way to post at the end about it being pedantic and technical. Nowhere in your quote of me do I discuss how I'd rule at my table.

You're seriously telling me that I have sinned against you in assuming that you meant what you wrote, and that I should have separately asked you, "So, Corwin, how would you rule?" just to ascertain that you didn't have some other, contrary ruling actually in mind?

Also incorrect. I never told you to ask me anything. Only that it would be nice to ask someone what they think before making broad assumptions based on a discussion of the rules in a book.

Not that you've actually TOLD anyone you'd make any such contrary ruling--you just got offended that I didn't double-check just in case you might.

Or... I dunno, maybe don't speak for others without checking first...

 

[Mephista]

I'm not sure I like limiting them based on pact though. Why does the Chainlock get the improved healing for instance, and why can't my bladelock never sleep.

I get the feeling that the Chainlock is really more of a GOO'lock thing, and the no sleep thing? Well, that's a classic Fey, not needing sleep thing. So...

We also need more special Familiars for Chain-pact Warlocks so we can match to the Great Old One and the Celestial. Fiend and Archfey already have two thematically-appropriate choices each.

Pseudo-dragon is the GOO familiar; they're both psychic and telepathic. You're right about the Celestial familiar needed, but GOO and fey have one each, while fiend gets two.

The Eldritch Smite looks like a poor choice, IMO. The Warlock has so few spell slots that a simple +Xd8 damage on one melee attack hardly seems worth it.

But it also knocks prone, which is huge. That's a great set up for lots of tactics.

The difference is that the paladin has more spell slots, albeit lower-level ones. Up to 10th level, the warlock only has two spell slots (per short rest), while the 10th level paladin has a total of 9 slots of 1st through 3rd level.

And the warlock's slots can generally be used to do more interesting things. Blight with a 5th level slot would deal 9d8 (save for half). A fiend-pact warlock could fireball for 10d6. Or you could cast fly, hold monster, or hypnotic pattern.

Not more interesting if you want to be a melee weapon user. For those who want to hit things with their blade, its a welcome addition.

I do think maybe Celestial Patron needs to be toned down a bit, it's a lot more powerful then the other Patrons.

I think you mean -less- powerful. Sure, the healing is good, but +Cha damage to ONE target on a fire or radiant spell still puts you behind Eldritch Blast and Hex / fireball abilities on a fiend warlock. Heck. Celestial Patron doesn't even give fireball. Unless you take the Mephistopheles ability, I suppose, but +CHA to one creature is still not a big jump in damage at this point after everything else involved.

Apologies if this has been touched upon already, but can we assume by the introduction of Frost Blast and Gift of the Seas to the Warlocks Invoke list that the Sea Sorcerer didn't make the final cut and instead got folded into the Celestial Warlock?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah. Frost Blast is because Winter Court / cold magics is a thing with 4e fey warlocks. Gift of the Seas is something to enable more sea-faring classes, not baning them. It says nothing about the Sea Sorcerer.

I didn't realise anyone disliked them being tied to Patrons. It made patron choice more impactful.

As someone who requires story to make sense, I don't have an issue at my table of non-fiend warlocks even thinking about something named after an archdevil.

----

On the Maddening Hex the King bit... The king, no matter how smart or dumb you make him? Is taking damage. How is that not obvious that something is immediately happening? Maybe our warlock is in a crowd, wearing a cloak, no one pays attention to the weirdo cloaking their magic because its hard to tell. The king is still suddenly going to be in pain. Its going to be obvious there's damage, if only a sudden migrain.

And, unless your king is pretty laize faire about magic users in his country, I imagine there's going to be a few as guards, as well as a healer nearby that could remove the curse, or at least keep the hp high enough until someone can diagnose and remove the curse. Realistically, I can't see this happening, just because it requires the king to have no magical backup, and the damage to be unnoticed.

Are there some situations this could be used to kill someone? Absolutely. And that'd make an awesome story. But anyone anywhere with some stealth rolls? Not likely.

 

[Yunru]

Ah the Celestial Patron. Not where I expected to be going for my Eldritch Blast and Scorching Ray spamming Sorcelock.

 

[Vulf]

Thanks for pointing that out. I misread how it worked.

A Familiar spell can provide the help action every turn, without any actions on the caster's part

I'm surprised it isn't on any of the Circle of the Land bonus lists. Even though it is level 1, and they all start with level 2 spells.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You choice of words here comes across strongly hinting at you being unhappy with 5e. Might I offer to help you find a more fitting system/edition? Or perhaps offer ways to alter 5e until it better suits your preferences?

I'm unhappy with an aspect of 5E and the smug condescension of the apologists for that design element. "Well, the game works great if you just hit yourself in the crotch 6-8 times a session, I can't fathom why anyone would object to Glorious Leader's divine intent!"

For the record, I think 5E has a really good engine under the hood! It's probably my favorite from the player end of things. There's some tuning issues and lack of good boss mechanics, but if you say "you get a rest only when the DM says so" and your players are fine with that, it works. But 6-8 encounters just dont often happen organically in play. It requires a pretty weird Venn diagram of pacing between "this has to be done today!" and "but not so urgent you cant take 2-3 hour-long naps in enemy territory". Look at the published adventures... how often is the 6-8 encounter expectation enforced? Not very much...

It reminds me of 1E's weird stance of telling me that magic items should be rare, then basically every adventure handing out double digits of permanent items.