Last edited:
D&D 5E L&L November 4th Warlock Design
Sounds very cool and if you read closely you can see that the type of Patron effects the how the type of pact manifests. Here's what I mean, a say Demonic (Patron type) Book (Pact Type), Pact would grant more spells and ways to shape spells, but the the Demonic Patron would effect the choicies you have for spells, the way you can shape them, and the flavour of course.
Another example a Fey (Patron Type) Chain (Pact Type), that allows you to summon Fey beings and bind them to your will, maybe even cast spells via them. So the list of Patrons would each include Book, Blade, and Chain benifits depending on the pact type you choose.
Or at least that's what Mike seemed to be saying.
In the Future I doubt you'll see any more Pact types aa you'd have to update all past patrons so most future additions to the class will be probably be Patrons.
Another example a Fey (Patron Type) Chain (Pact Type), that allows you to summon Fey beings and bind them to your will, maybe even cast spells via them. So the list of Patrons would each include Book, Blade, and Chain benifits depending on the pact type you choose.
Or at least that's what Mike seemed to be saying.
In the Future I doubt you'll see any more Pact types aa you'd have to update all past patrons so most future additions to the class will be probably be Patrons.
Kinak
First Post
Interested to see what they come up with for this. If it's not a magic-user (thematically) that's easy enough for everyone to play, I'll personally count it as a huge miss... but there's no way to tell that from the article.
I kind of doubt they'll have patrons and pacts explicitly say how they relate. I'd expect something more like one determining your list of spells/invocations and the other changing how you use spells/invocations. Having each explicitly describe out how it relates to each of the others really constricts future design, as [MENTION=6670153]gyor[/MENTION] pointed out, making it a mess to add future Pacts.
Cheers!
Kinak
I kind of doubt they'll have patrons and pacts explicitly say how they relate. I'd expect something more like one determining your list of spells/invocations and the other changing how you use spells/invocations. Having each explicitly describe out how it relates to each of the others really constricts future design, as [MENTION=6670153]gyor[/MENTION] pointed out, making it a mess to add future Pacts.
Cheers!
Kinak
I find it to be a very interesting subclass design decision to go with what you do with the power you are given, as opposed to who it is that is giving it to you. It actually solves a problem of player expectation and helps save space in the first PH.
As it stands... the three "pacts" that Mike illustrated are indeed the three methodologies that warlocks have exhibited thus far in the game-- the melee fighter, the caster, and the binder. This stands in opposition of the much larger number of patrons that have been created in the game thus far-- the fey, the infernals, the star, the dark, the vestiges etc.
If WotC created the subclass mechanics off of the patrons themselves... there's a good chance they wouldn't be able to include ALL the patrons as options in the first player's handbook because there's just too many of them. Some would have to have been held back due to space. And that would cause consternation in a good swathe of the playerbase-- knowing that they wouldn't be able to play their Dark pact warlock from the beginning of Next for example.
But if instead they design it such that the choice of patron gives much more of a fluff and story overlay to the character, as opposed to a list of specific abilities that need to be described for levels 6, 10, 14 etc. etc... you can include many more patron descriptions in the first book of the game. You can have a paragraph written of each of the six to eight patron types, without needing a long list of game mechanics for each of those six to eight. Instead... you only need to list and explain the game mechanics for three-- the blade, the book, and the chain. As you create your character, you select a patron as the background and storyboard for who your warlock is... and then you select your pact to give you the mechanics to show off what power you are given and how you exhibit it.
And to top it off... it also means that every type of patron can have warlocks of all three types of subclasses. You can have fey blades *and* fey casters, *and* fey binders (as well as infernal blades, casters and binders, star blades, casters and binders etc.) That will give many more options to players for deciding how they want to exhibit the abilities their patron has given them.
I think these three pacts-- blade, book, and chain... will actually give more options for people right off the bat, and also make the creation of new patrons easier to accomplish (since you won't have to create a whole list of game mechanics to go with them.)
As it stands... the three "pacts" that Mike illustrated are indeed the three methodologies that warlocks have exhibited thus far in the game-- the melee fighter, the caster, and the binder. This stands in opposition of the much larger number of patrons that have been created in the game thus far-- the fey, the infernals, the star, the dark, the vestiges etc.
If WotC created the subclass mechanics off of the patrons themselves... there's a good chance they wouldn't be able to include ALL the patrons as options in the first player's handbook because there's just too many of them. Some would have to have been held back due to space. And that would cause consternation in a good swathe of the playerbase-- knowing that they wouldn't be able to play their Dark pact warlock from the beginning of Next for example.
But if instead they design it such that the choice of patron gives much more of a fluff and story overlay to the character, as opposed to a list of specific abilities that need to be described for levels 6, 10, 14 etc. etc... you can include many more patron descriptions in the first book of the game. You can have a paragraph written of each of the six to eight patron types, without needing a long list of game mechanics for each of those six to eight. Instead... you only need to list and explain the game mechanics for three-- the blade, the book, and the chain. As you create your character, you select a patron as the background and storyboard for who your warlock is... and then you select your pact to give you the mechanics to show off what power you are given and how you exhibit it.
And to top it off... it also means that every type of patron can have warlocks of all three types of subclasses. You can have fey blades *and* fey casters, *and* fey binders (as well as infernal blades, casters and binders, star blades, casters and binders etc.) That will give many more options to players for deciding how they want to exhibit the abilities their patron has given them.
I think these three pacts-- blade, book, and chain... will actually give more options for people right off the bat, and also make the creation of new patrons easier to accomplish (since you won't have to create a whole list of game mechanics to go with them.)
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
Are you thinking of the witch (which is actually a wizard build) in 4e?
Kobold Avenger
Legend
I think a specific Patron might be useful in that a specific Patron gives ones one unique ability, and a list of suggested powers. But beyond that all Warlocks should have their commons abilities to pick.
One thing I'm interested in is how they handle invocations this time, as I wouldn't want them overlapping with spells, but they could open up the possibility of subclasses in other classes as having access to some. But then I had the idea that they should have collapsed cantrips into invocations, but I see the issue with the problem of having cantrips too integrated with spells.
One thing I'm interested in is how they handle invocations this time, as I wouldn't want them overlapping with spells, but they could open up the possibility of subclasses in other classes as having access to some. But then I had the idea that they should have collapsed cantrips into invocations, but I see the issue with the problem of having cantrips too integrated with spells.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I worry the class might become too complicated and not simple enough. The best part of the 4e version was the many kinds of pacts/patrons, and I guess they might be too much to put in core, but on the other hand if they wanted to have smaller patrons, they should have come up with something more similar to domains/spheres for variety. Like someone said before the devil is in the details and it is a shame we won't have a chance to provide feedback, to me warlock and sorcerer are the reasons to want a new edition as opposed to 2e/LL with AEC, they are kind of too important. Will they be fiddly in built? how many choice points will the class have? how about invocations? will there be a "generic" warlock option? -really the best option when you cannot provide them all is to offer a flavor neutral version among the selection-. will the subclasses be full of subsystems? invocations how much will be unique and how much will be recycled spells? -a good balance must be gotten here, warlocks need enough unique toys ugly wizards cannot steal, but not taken too far so we get a "fireball in all but name"- (On the other hand, did they really seriously thought they could have crammed all that into just a wizard subclass/alternate casting??<snark ends>)
Savage Wombat
Hero
It strikes me that, fluff-wise, I would like to see something written that shows how the Warlock's relationship with his patron differs from the Cleric's relationship with his deity. A cleric traditionally is a loyal servant - I'd like to see the idea that a Warlock is (or could be) a bargainer that is in this solely for the power.
Similar Threads
