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."

​

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It seems funny that all of the sudden there is concern about "invocations named after one patron type" when devil's sight (not to mention Chains of Carceri [home of a lot of fiends]) was in the PHB. What about arms/hunger of Hadar? Last I checked the Big H is a GOO.

Has anyone ever been prevented from getting devil's sight as a feylock? Or is this yet again one of the "I heard from my third cousin twice removed that his best friend's brother's girlfriend's hairdresser's nephew once couldn't do this, therefore D&D is broken" things?

 

[Chaosmancer]

You just hexed the Kings intelligence. Is he not thinking?

And I don't know about your game, but in my game laying a hex on someone is obvious. You are magically cursing them. Channelling the foul powers of your dark patron into them. Your eyes turn a funny colour or you hurl stream of insults at them. Whatever.

Just because an ability lacks any fluff text as what it looks like doesn't mean it doesn't look like anything. Youre free to rule in the absence of any text that says it looks like something specific that it doesn't look like anything at all, but that's up to you.

If a player in my game said he was going to lay a hex on the King, then that is an offensive action that the king gets to respond to and initiative is declared.

I'm not saying you have to run it that way. Go nuts with whatever feels right to you.

While this is an interesting debate, in truth it doesn't matter.

Initiative is declared and the warlock runs for it. Either by invocations, double dashing, or dimension door.

Then proceeds to use maddening hex to kill the king.

Unless the guards are able to kill the warlock or make him drop concentration the king will be dead, because there is no save in this scenario.

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.

Beyond just a general table agreement of "Please don't abuse this guys, otherwise I'll have to nerf it" the above covers my thoughts on this.

Most rulers of the level of king are going to have some kind of counter for magical assassination or control. They'd have to if most games have spellcasters of at least level 5.

In my game world, most crowns that are old enough, are magically enchanted items that confer benefits like being immune to charm and offering resistance to magic, because a ruler that has to deal with a wizard school needs to be able to actually deal with wizards trying to control them.

 

[Irda Ranger]

It's the same amount of damage per equivalent level spell slot as the Paladin's Divine Smite. If you're going to argue this is weak, then you'll have to argue that is too.

You're making the same mistake Wizards is, IMO. I specifically noted the limited number of Warlock spell slots when I made that comment.
1) A spell slot is a lot more precious to a Warlock than a Paladin, and
2) A Warlock cannot choose to use a lower-level slot to conserve resources; and
3) The Warlock has higher opportunity costs, because he has more offensive spells.

Taken together a straight conversion of +Xd8 damage doesn't seem very appealing.

 

[Vulf]

You're making the same mistake Wizards is, IMO. I specifically noted the limited number of Warlock spell slots when I made that comment.
1) A spell slot is a lot more precious to a Warlock than a Paladin, and
2) A Warlock cannot choose to use a lower-level slot to conserve resources; and
3) The Warlock has higher opportunity costs, because he has more offensive spells.

Taken together a straight conversion of +Xd8 damage doesn't seem very appealing.

Uhh, no. The Paladin's spell slots do not recover on a short rest.

The Warlock can also maintain concentration on Hex through multiple fights and multiple rests, so it's not like they need to spend a slot every combat to have their Eldritch blast out damaging the paladin's extra attacks.

The Paladin will usually have the unenviable position of spending the first turn of many fights casting Bless. They can't just drop all of their spells on smites when they are such an important support class. If your DM is using kiddy gloves, maybe they can get away with it. But Bless is the biggest DPR boost for most parties.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

But the warlock isn't even present when the king is taking damage. That's what makes Maddening Hex remarkable: it has no Line-of-Sight or range requirements.

 

[Mistwell]

You just hexed the Kings intelligence. Is he not thinking?

I agree. If you give disadvantage to someone's ability score, they "experience the spells effects". Much like when my P.C. is hit by one of those nasty undead or necromantic creatures than drain my Con, I have definitely "experienced the effects" of that attack! Now I suppose you could argue some is not aware their charisma or wisdom has been decreased until they interact with someone else? But I am pretty sure they'll know relatively quickly. And I'd think with strength, dexterity, constitution, or intelligence, you'd "experience the effects" right away. And realistically I am probably not going to play games with treating one ability score differently than others and probably would make anyone "experience the effect" right away for any disadvantage or decrease to an ability score (and disadvantage roughly "feels" like a -5 drain to that ability score).

And if anyone is going to argue that "disadvantage" is not "experienced" like damage, if a spell gives you disadvantage to attacks and saves, is there any reasonable question that you're experiencing that? Would anyone really argue (outside of trying to win an argument on the Internet about pedantic game rules) that a PC who has disadvantage to attack isn't experiencing an effect?

In fact, if we're going to quibble, why would "damage" to an ability score be treated meaningfully differently than damage to hit points, given hit points are supposed to be some combination of your measure of luck and skill and endurance and blessing by the Gods and many other factors? You could reasonably argue you don't "experience" the loss of hit points as a character in the world until the last hit point, or at least half the hit points, are gone. Yet I know of zero people who would claim the PC doesn't "experience the effect" of a spell that causes damage to hit points.

If a player in my game said he was going to lay a hex on the King, then that is an offensive action that the king gets to respond to and initiative is declared.

Yeah, you're giving disadvantage to their ability score. I mean, is a ray of enfeeblement an attack? I think the answer is obviously yes. So why wouldn't this be? They might not be certain what direction the attack came from, but that's not much different than an invisible and hidden foe zapping you with a ray of enfeeblement. You might not know who cast the spell, but you know you are experiencing the effects of a spell attack and you should have the opportunity to take an action (like yelling "Guards, I am under attack from an unseen foe, seal the room and seek them out!").

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

While this is an interesting debate, in truth it doesn't matter.

Initiative is declared and the warlock runs for it. Either by invocations, double dashing, or dimension door.

Then proceeds to use maddening hex to kill the king.

Unless the guards are able to kill the warlock or make him drop concentration the king will be dead, because there is no save in this scenario. *snip*

Beyond just a general table agreement of "Please don't abuse this guys, otherwise I'll have to nerf it" the above covers my thoughts on this.

Most rulers of the level of king are going to have some kind of counter for magical assassination or control. They'd have to if most games have spellcasters of at least level 5.

In my game world, most crowns that are old enough, are magically enchanted items that confer benefits like being immune to charm and offering resistance to magic, because a ruler that has to deal with a wizard school needs to be able to actually deal with wizards trying to control them.

It doesn't have to be a king per se. Note that the scenario you posit (Hex and then run like mad/teleport away) works equally well against, say, an ancient red dragon or the Tarrasque. If Maddening Hex as written gets introduced to your game, you'll have to either live with letting warlocks kill the Tarrasque at level 2 (I think) using Hex and a reasonably fast horse, or you'll have to modify the Tarrasque to be immune to Maddening Hex.

IMO it needs to be limited to the same range and line-of-sight as Hex: 90', and you have to be able to see the creature.

 

[Mistwell]

Did you miss that part where one of the devs are directly quoted?

Did you miss the part where the devs quote says they must "experience the effects" of the spell, and Hex immediately harms an ability score which is definitely an effect of the spell which they should experience immediately?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree. If you give disadvantage to someone's ability score, they "experience the spells effects". Much like when my P.C. is hit by one of those nasty undead or necromantic creatures than drain my Con, I have definitely "experienced the effects" of that attack! Now I suppose you could argue some is not aware their charisma or wisdom has been decreased until they interact with someone else? But I am pretty sure they'll know relatively quickly. And I'd think with strength, dexterity, constitution, or intelligence, you'd "experience the effects" right away. And realistically I am probably not going to play games with treating one ability score differently than others and probably would make anyone "experience the effect" right away for any disadvantage or decrease to an ability score (and disadvantage roughly "feels" like a -5 drain to that ability score).



Yeah, you're giving disadvantage to their ability score. I mean, is a ray of enfeeblement an attack? I think the answer is obviously yes. So why wouldn't this be? They might not be certain what direction the attack came from, but that's not much different than an invisible and hidden foe zapping you with a ray of enfeeblement. You might not know who cast the spell, but you know you are experiencing the effects of a spell attack and you should have the opportunity to take an action (like yelling "Guards, I am under attack from an unseen foe, seal the room and seek them out!").

Note that Hex does not in fact decrease your ability scores. If you Hex the king's Int, his wizard spell DC does not change, nor his attack roll with wizard cantrips, nor his Int save, nor his vulnerability to Intellect Devourer body snatching. Only his Int ability checks are made at disadvantage. If he's not making Int ability checks, he isn't yet experiencing the effects of the spell.

 

[jgsugden]

I often find myself thinking that people that complain about a lot of these warlock issues do not have a lot of experience playing a warlock. Anyone throwing their limited number of warlock spells into a smite replacement will only have 1 or 2 slots per short rest to do it - and will often have a better use for that slot. Unless you play in a campaign where you consistently get a rest after every combat, you just don't have the spell slots free to smite away as freely as a paladin does. That isn't to say that a paladin might not add warlock levels for extra smites, but is not the same thing.

I like a lot of these additional invocations, but I'd rather see them revise the original invocations that never get used before we add more. All of those 'once per LR, but use a warlock slot' need the obvious fix.