D&D 5E More about the Warlock. L&L March 3

[Savage Wombat]

I'm really getting the feeling that 5e is leaving the pact-holder up to the individual campaign, not the character rules.

 

[Shadowsoul]

Now I'm wondering which Patrons one can choose from. Fey is obvious, as is Infernal, but demon, Vestiage, and star seem likely as well. I say demon because Quasits are demons, not devils Star because it was one of the key pacts of 4e, and Vestiage because they drew inspiration from Binders as well.


So this could get interesting. What kind of pet would a Vestiage Warlock get? Star pact maybe beholderkin? Infernal would obviously be imp.

We better get shadow.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm really getting the feeling that 5e is leaving the pact-holder up to the individual campaign, not the character rules.

I am beginning to suspect the same.

Instead of Infernal, Winter Fey Court, or Caiphon, pact, a tome warlock gets to choose an energy type for an Invocation and add that damage to his eldritch blast or something. But no specific pact is mentioned. Cold could be dark, infernal, fey, or whatever you decide it to be.

 

[Dausuul]

Very interesting stuff! In both 3E and 4E, the warlock class was cursed with lousy execution of some very neat ideas. I'm hopeful that 5E will finally get it right. The mix of limited spellcasting with invocations is an excellent idea.

And I also really like the chain warlock concept. While the 3E druid and dread necromancer came close, we've never really had a dedicated "pet" class in D&D that I can recall.

I'm really getting the feeling that 5e is leaving the pact-holder up to the individual campaign, not the character rules.

Mearls does say the warlock can "match any of these three pacts [chain, tome, or blade] to any type of patron." That implies there will be defined "patron types," though we don't know how much of an impact they will have.

After thinking about it, my guess is that your pact choice is mostly about choosing your default attack mode. If you choose blade, then you get a melee attack. If you choose tome, then you get the traditional eldritch blast. If you choose chain, then you get a pet to do your attacking for you. Patron choice determines your access to spells (Mearls specifically stated this) and possibly invocations.

 

[bogmad]

Very interesting stuff! In both 3E and 4E, the warlock class was cursed with lousy execution of some very neat ideas. I'm hopeful that 5E will finally get it right. The mix of limited spellcasting with invocations is an excellent idea.

And I also really like the chain warlock concept. While the 3E druid and dread necromancer came close, we've never really had a dedicated "pet" class in D&D that I can recall.



Mearls does say the warlock can "match any of these three pacts [chain, tome, or blade] to any type of patron." That implies there will be defined "patron types," though we don't know how much of an impact they will have.

After thinking about it, my guess is that your pact choice mainly influences your "basic attack mode." If you choose blade, then you get a melee attack. If you choose tome, then you get the traditional eldritch blast. If you choose chain, then you get a pet to do your attacking for you. Patron choice determines your access to spells (Mearls specifically stated this) and possibly invocations.

Yeah, so far the only effect patron seems to have for sure is a few optional spells laid on. An infernal pact might get burning hands, while a fey gets... charm person?

 

[Dausuul]

After thinking about it a little more, I find myself wondering how they plan to make the chain warlock work. Pets have always presented a big problem in D&D because of the action economy; but 4E's solution of making you "feed" your own actions to your pet never sat very well with me. What can your minion do for you besides attack?

 

[Minigiant]

Mearls does say the warlock can "match any of these three pacts [chain, tome, or blade] to any type of patron." That implies there will be defined "patron types," though we don't know how much of an impact they will have.

After thinking about it, my guess is that your pact choice is mostly about choosing your default attack mode. If you choose blade, then you get a melee attack. If you choose tome, then you get the traditional eldritch blast. If you choose chain, then you get a pet to do your attacking for you. Patron choice determines your access to spells (Mearls specifically stated this) and possibly invocations.

This is why I wished for a preview with actual meat.

The core of the warlock experience is your at will for most of your life. So you have to choose between eldritch blast, pact blade/hideous blow, and pact pet at level 1.

Then does your patron give you features or do you choose from a list 3.5 style.

Do you pick Brimstone Blast and Burning Hands for your tome warlock and say you're infernal (3.5) or do you pick Infernal and it gives your tome warlock Brimstone Blast and Burning Hands (4e)?

 

[GX.Sigma]

After thinking about it a little more, I find myself wondering how they plan to make the chain warlock work. Pets have always presented a big problem in D&D because of the action economy; but 4E's solution of making you "feed" your own actions to your pet never sat very well with me. What can your minion do for you besides attack?

According to the D&DN Bestiary, a quasit grants its master magic resistance, has poisonous claws, casts cause fear, changes into various animals, and turns invisible.

Traditionally, a pseudodragon grants its companion magic resistance, has a posionous sting, changes colors to become almost invisible, reads thoughts, and sees invisible things.

A pretty big step up from 4e's pathetic sidekicks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

According to the D&DN Bestiary, a quasit grants its master magic resistance, has poisonous claws, casts cause fear, changes into various animals, and turns invisible.

Traditionally, a pseudodragon grants its companion magic resistance, has a posionous sting, changes colors to become almost invisible, reads thoughts, and sees invisible things.

A pretty big step up from 4e's pathetic sidekicks.

With that, I wonder if one solution to the "metagame action economy" scenario is to have the critter just add an effect to their master's attacks. Poison claws, poison sting -- maybe rather than being a "sic 'em!," it's more that the little bastard also gets in a hit when their boss does?

Then one can see invisible things and read thoughts, and one can cause fear and disguise itself, they both give you magic resistance and get out of the way so that they aren't a target. More useful for their magical effects than for their combat prowess.

Which kind of makes sense. If they're supposed to be on par with a weapon or a spell, then I don't imagine they're going to be pets in the MMO sense of sending something out to attack in place of you.

But that's all rampant speculation.

 

[Warbringer]

But that's all rampant speculation.

And that is why we love the Internet !!