D&D 5E L&L November 4th Warlock Design

[Falling Icicle]

It seems to me like they're trying to cram too much into a single class here. It's like they're trying to take the original warlock, the hexblade and the Pathfinder summoner and combine them all into the same class. I would think hexblades would work better as one of the multiclass subclasses they've been talking about.

It also seems to me that the blade, book and chain are the warlock's subclasses instead of his pact. That seems a bit odd to me. I really hope the various pacts are mechanically different rather than just being pure fluff.

I'm a bit concerned about the roleplaying nature of pacts. Are warlocks slaves to their patrons, or can they rebel against them? What happens to a warlock's powers if his patron is killed? Can a warlock change his allegiance to a different patron? These are all very important questions, and I hope they answer them. I also hope they're going to give a much more detailed preview of the class in the future.

In the end, I'm just grateful that warlocks are going to be their own class!

 

[DEFCON 1]

It seems to me like they're trying to cram too much into a single class here. It's like they're trying to take the original warlock, the hexblade and the Pathfinder summoner and combine them all into the same class.

I dunno... that doesn't seem that much different than the various wizard schools. All eight of those have much different foci and change how your wizard behaves. The Conjuration/Summoning school is traditionally like the binder warlock, there are usually several transmutation spells that make a wizard more melee focused like the hexblade, and evocation spells do all the manner of direct damage just like the 4E base warlock. And heck, look at the druid-- that has a caster build and a shapechange build. Those are two fairly disparate foci as well.

So I don't know if the warlock having a melee build, caster build, and pet build is really all that different than the other classes out there.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Backwards. Clerics are angel or god-pact warlocks!

If only that were true. I really dislike how they kept clerics the same: cast like wizards, fight like fighters, with bonus divine powers. And absolutely zero mechanical obligations to care about their supposed god's goals, tenets, or commandments.

It's easy to represent reliance on a higher power. Several iterations of the Warlock class dealt with acquiring and spending favor. Oriental Adventures had the Wu-Jen class, which gradually acquired weird and cool taboos that had to be observed (not eating meat, celibacy, no alcohol, can't cut hair, can't touch corpses, etc.) I mean, that's what old school priests were all about: prohibitions. Don't do this, don't do that. I'd love, love, love the Cleric to have had such mechanically-represented flavor. Alas. But I'll settle for a warlock. Especially if the 5e warlock wasn't restricted to Arcane. Actually... is that even a distinction, anymore? Looking at the spell list in 5e, they list school of magic but don't designate arcane or divine. Hmm.

Anyway: it's my hope that the type of patron (fey, infernal, etc.) matters as much or more than the type of pact (book, blade, chain). I'd love it even more if they had a bunch of specific, named patrons. And a system (like the random tables for magic items) for players & DMs to create their own patrons.

 

[thewok]

It seems to me like they're trying to cram too much into a single class here. It's like they're trying to take the original warlock, the hexblade and the Pathfinder summoner and combine them all into the same class.

It's like the 4E warlock, which had three subclasses. The PHB Warlock is the "book," and the Hexblade is the "Blade." For the "Chain," they're going back to the 3.5 idea of a Binder rather than the halfhearted warlock controller from Heroes of Shadow.

It seems to me that the warlock is making two choices off the bat. He's got to choose his pact, of course (or he's not even a warlock), and then he has to choose how that pact manifests. So, right off the bat there are, say, nine types of warlocks to be had in the PHB (assuming three pacts). Alternatively, the warlock could choose the pact type at 1 and deal with spells for a bit before choosing the actual pact manifestation (blade, book or chain) at level 3.

I may be wrong about that, though, as Mearls calls the book/blade/chain choice the pact type and never mentions anything like infernal, fey, star, and so on. Even if the only choice is the "weapon," then warlocks can still differentiate themselves from each other by their spell choices. So, the infernal pact warlock will get mostly fire and ice spells, the fey warlock would get stuff like invisibility and illusions, and so on.

I would like to see the 4E pacts remain, but a completely open pact type has its upsides, as it allows for great customization based on the specific patron. I do think the three pact types need to play fairly differently, so that playing a bladelock and a booklock seem quite different.

This was a fairly short article, though. I'm sure it's meant to be vague, as they've probably still not finalized the mechanics for this class. But, a couple of example character ideas wouldn't have been amiss.

 

[Tovec]

I may be wrong about that, though, as Mearls calls the book/blade/chain choice the pact type and never mentions anything like infernal, fey, star, and so on. Even if the only choice is the "weapon," then warlocks can still differentiate themselves from each other by their spell choices. So, the infernal pact warlock will get mostly fire and ice spells, the fey warlock would get stuff like invisibility and illusions, and so on.

Bold from me.

You noticed that too huh?

Now it could be that it is an already understood part, or it could be relegated to obscurity. Kind of like what your background in 3e's sorcerer was - "I got my powers from my great great great great grandfather who was a dragon" but it could have easily have been a fiend, celestial or whatever. I think it could be that it just isn't a significant enough choice. Where individual games might say "your patron is a devil" but where it doesn't need to be really explained as long as the warlock gets their shiny chains or sword.

It could taint the warlock. I think it would be great if it did impact how the character worked, but I do not have high hopes for that. It seems to be a step too far from what I've come to expect from these designers. I'm thinking it is more likely that it won't matter or that the devils give you chains and the fey give you swords and the angels give you books (or whatever variation) so that there is only one choice point.

And while I'm with KM and others and I think that they missed the mark with the warlock's background description I think they should pick a single one and go with it. If warlocks are the casters who fight, okay cool, do that. If they are the ones who use chains/binding then make a robust system for that. Splitting the attention three ways seems problematic when trying to make a strong character class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And while I'm with KM and others and I think that they missed the mark with the warlock's background description I think they should pick a single one and go with it. If warlocks are the casters who fight, okay cool, do that. If they are the ones who use chains/binding then make a robust system for that. Splitting the attention three ways seems problematic when trying to make a strong character class.

Eh... if we can have a Druid that is primarily a spellcaster on one side, and a melee-focused shapechanger on the other... I think having three warlock builds (melee, caster, pet) isn't that big of a deal. Heck, even our clerics have had melee primary builds for like the war and justice domains, and caster primary builds for the sun and magic domains.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not enamored of the cries for a narrower, more focused class. I think at the level of focus that NEXT seems to be pegging for, a narrow class isn't a good thing. A class is a blurry, indistinct, mutable, suggestive general bucket, not a strict kind of character. Like I've sort of mentioned with the warlock: you could view clerics that way. Heck, you can view some wizards or rogues or fighters that way ("I've sworn an oath to this blade, to bathe it in the blood of my enemies, and this is why it serves me well."). It's not a strict kind of character, so I've got no problem with it enfolding the various types and pacts and whatnot. Sure sure.

The other side of the coin would be to make the Blade Feylock its own class and the Chain Hellock its own class and the Book Starlock its own class (or whatever), and be very specific about who they are are in the world. As much as I think there's a lot to gain from that view, I'm not sure it's something D&D can easily do, because of what people expect from D&D as a game.

The only way you could get a narrower, more focused class would be to exclude folks from the class, and that's not within NEXT's agenda, really. I imagine they're going to want a Warlock that 3e warlock fans and 4e warlock fans can look at and say, "Yep, looks like I can play my warlock with this." And it looks like they're gunning for it pretty OK.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Every class seems to be getting a wider focus. There were even suggestions of there being more weapon-focused wizard and more spell-casting focused fighters for multiclassing.

 

[gyor]

I like what they have planned for the lock.

Here's how I see them doing it.

Demon Pact:

Blade: Abyssal Blade (creates magic blade) with abilities x w z

Book: invocations l k j, mod v g h

Chain: Balor with v b a

Fey:

Blade: Blade of the UnSeelie Court

Book: Invocations T Y U, Mod Q W E

Chain: Summon Satyr of Night with O U A

And so on so as long as they keep it to Blade, Book, Chain expanding by Patron should be easy.

 

[gweinel]

I am the only who crossed my mind a possible (ex) warlock(blade)/warlock(book) multiclass?