Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Starter Spells; Plus UA Returning To Monthly & Sage Advice Returning

Chaos Bolt is the first Sorcerer-only spell. Interesting.

What I've read so far looks really good. I like the idea of Ceremony quite a bit, but some of the effects (Investiture!) might be a little overpowered.
 

fjw70

Adventurer
Hey, don't try to impose puritanical hyper-monogamous ideals on me!

Also, why does it have to be only two people getting married in the first place?

If polyamory was good enough for the inventor of Wonder Woman, it's good enough for anyone!

<grumble>

I do not recall specifying any numbers.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tuxgeo

Adventurer
Zephyr Strike is too powerful to be a first level spell. It needs to be second level. I like it though. Guiding Hand violates a 5e guiding principle. It destroys story line. It is the reason that Know Alignment was eliminated and Detect Lie was modified in fifth edition. Ceremony (Atonement) is also too powerful at first level and also has the power to destroy important story telling elements of a campaign. Atonement is an epic quest and the backbone of many stories. It should NOT be solved by a first level spell. Ceremony (Coming of Age and Marriage) spells are mechanical cheese that 5e was designed to eliminate. The component cost of Ceremony needs to be consumable. Healing Elixir steps on the toes of clerics and druids and should also have a consumable component cost. Puppet needs a rider to eliminate moving opponents into damaging squares. Toll of the Dead is great thematically, but I think instead of doing a d12 it should do an extra d8 but only if a creature is at lower than half of its hit point maximum (I'm being nit picky). Unearthly Chorus is great thematically, but should also be bumped up to at least second level. It allows you to cast charm person for up to 10 rounds as bonus action. Why would I take charm person if this spell exists?

[Quoting the whole thing because a lot of thought went into that.]

• Zephyr Strike: I like that as a Ranger-only 1st-level spell, which the Ranger cannot cast at all at 1st level because the Ranger is a half-caster. Casting as a bonus action, and thereby getting advantage on one attack per casting, is a lovely and thematic use for Ranger spells, IMHO.
• Guiding Hand: Would that be more acceptable if it were 2nd-level or 3rd-level?
• Ceremony: I'm going to ignore that for now because other posters have discussed it more thoroughly than I can.
• Puppet: Weird that it's a CON saving throw against enchantment. Wouldn't that better be CHA instead?
• Toll the Dead: This gives the Cleric a way to deal necrotic damage without having access to Chill Touch, which has twice the Range. Very thematic for Clerics; less so for Warlocks & Wizards.
• Unearthly Chorus: Agreed, it's great thematically. I would have wanted it to do other things, though, making these changes:
(a) The sound of the Chorus would only be audible while the Bard is actually Performing*;
[Edit: * Actually Performing could include such things as simply trying to attract attention, or getting up on a stage, etc.]
(b) The spell would not directly make any creature friendly if failing a save, but would have a lingering effect for an hour after;
(c) The spell would give the Bard advantage on both CHA (Performance) for the duration, and on CHA (Persuasion) for that lingering effect period; and would give the audience disadvantage on WIS (Perception) checks to notice anybody other than the Bard during the performance.
With those changes, the spell would avoid stepping on the toes of Charm Person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lanliss

Explorer
And cure wounds?
And lesser and greater restoration?
And raise dead/resurrection/true resurrection?

The warlock in the PHB is not in any sense a healer. It is patently obvious that is not the direction WotC was going for, no matter what the lady in the illustration looks like to you. You can homebrew whatever you like into your game, of course, but at some point you must realize that you're just writing a new class.

So you agree that it's a problem and something that should not happen in game. Great! We're on the same page! Then I repeat the question: why should it be the DM's responsibility to fix this problem, rather than something the rules themselves cover? It's not as if this is some obscure interaction between two rules that you have to bend over backwards to intersect. They put this spell right there on the warlock's spell list.

And yet that's not what I said. I said they had ulterior motives and weren't on the level. They don't have to be evil, but there does have to be a strong element of mystery and danger to the pact, or else the warlock is just a cleric with different mechanics.

Is there an inherent problem with the Warlock being a Cleric with different mechanics? That is basically how I view them, and have since the beginning. It might be because I don't have any history in the game to make me lean a different way. Cleric is actually at the top of my list for classes that need a full overhaul, because I find them bland. Changing them to the Warlock chassis might help, since I could then write up Domain based Invocations.

On spells to be added, I mentioned earlier that I might make up some spells with similar effects of curing and removing ailments, but only as potions that take a good amount of time to make, and build a full homebrew "Herbalist"/"Potion brewer" subclass. Cannot remember which post I mentioned it in.

As far as "The problem", there are two ways to look at it. From a story point of view it's fine in the world, and the patrons clearly allow it. From a mechanics point of view, it is a problem, one that can be handled at the table level, just like the Hex+Bag-o-rats that everyone was up in arms about a short while back, and probably much longer before that.

There is also the more general in-between point of view, where it is a story informed by the mechanics, to which my response would be the same as if it was just mechanics. It is literally as easy as saying "Please don't do that". Alternatively, since they have so much healing, you could ask permission to boost the difficulty of the things they are getting ready to fight. I also mentioned earlier that an NPC Warlock could use the spell to keep their minions healed, so if the players are going to pull that sort of trick because "The story allows it", they better be ready for someone else in the story to do the same. With their permission of course, I wouldn't just jump this on them to be petty. If I ask to increase the difficulty, and they say no, I guess they want a cake-walk.
 

Is there an inherent problem with the Warlock being a Cleric with different mechanics? That is basically how I view them, and have since the beginning. It might be because I don't have any history in the game to make me lean a different way. Cleric is actually at the top of my list for classes that need a full overhaul, because I find them bland. Changing them to the Warlock chassis might help, since I could then write up Domain based Invocations.

On spells to be added, I mentioned earlier that I might make up some spells with similar effects of curing and removing ailments, but only as potions that take a good amount of time to make, and build a full homebrew "Herbalist"/"Potion brewer" subclass. Cannot remember which post I mentioned it in.

As far as "The problem", there are two ways to look at it. From a story point of view it's fine in the world, and the patrons clearly allow it. From a mechanics point of view, it is a problem, one that can be handled at the table level, just like the Hex+Bag-o-rats that everyone was up in arms about a short while back, and probably much longer before that.

There is also the more general in-between point of view, where it is a story informed by the mechanics, to which my response would be the same as if it was just mechanics. It is literally as easy as saying "Please don't do that". Alternatively, since they have so much healing, you could ask permission to boost the difficulty of the things they are getting ready to fight. I also mentioned earlier that an NPC Warlock could use the spell to keep their minions healed, so if the players are going to pull that sort of trick because "The story allows it", they better be ready for someone else in the story to do the same. With their permission of course, I wouldn't just jump this on them to be petty. If I ask to increase the difficulty, and they say no, I guess they want a cake-walk.

It is historical, but history has affected the mechanics. To borrow a 4e phrase, the warlock has always been a striker, even before that was a concept. Although 5e doesn't acknowledge that role, mechanically the 5e warlock doesn't stray very far from being a striker, and where it does is almost always in being sneaky.

On the cleric side, historically the class was built to handle a bunch of rare conditions (and heal to boot). Since being a "healbot" is often assumed to be low status position for a PC, D&D has striven to let you be a "healbot" and do other things at the same time as a cleric. This is the primary reason clerics don't have to go around praying at different temples to get new spells (like wizards having to find theirs). There is a lot of flexibility built into clerics (which maybe why you find it boring, I mean a Swiss army knife is nice, but it is no machete). In contrast to the warlock, it is completely possible to be a 5e cleric that doesn't do anything related to the leader function.

It is easy to see how the clericlock could be reduced to "healbot with eldritch blast", because the warlock doesn't have as much flexibility to be good at healing/condition removal and something else at the same time, unless they were to substantially adjust healing (make the basic healing "healing touch" like the angel's MM entries--you can't heal everyone all the time, but you can take care of a bunch of things when you heal someone). I am not opposed to that, but it may require adjustments for the other primary healing classes.
 

Lanliss

Explorer
It is historical, but history has affected the mechanics. To borrow a 4e phrase, the warlock has always been a striker, even before that was a concept. Although 5e doesn't acknowledge that role, mechanically the 5e warlock doesn't stray very far from being a striker, and where it does is almost always in being sneaky.

On the cleric side, historically the class was built to handle a bunch of rare conditions (and heal to boot). Since being a "healbot" is often assumed to be low status position for a PC, D&D has striven to let you be a "healbot" and do other things at the same time as a cleric. This is the primary reason clerics don't have to go around praying at different temples to get new spells (like wizards having to find theirs). There is a lot of flexibility built into clerics (which maybe why you find it boring, I mean a Swiss army knife is nice, but it is no machete). In contrast to the warlock, it is completely possible to be a 5e cleric that doesn't do anything related to the leader function.

It is easy to see how the clericlock could be reduced to "healbot with eldritch blast", because the warlock doesn't have as much flexibility to be good at healing/condition removal and something else at the same time, unless they were to substantially adjust healing (make the basic healing "healing touch" like the angel's MM entries--you can't heal everyone all the time, but you can take care of a bunch of things when you heal someone). I am not opposed to that, but it may require adjustments for the other primary healing classes.

Actually, my opinion of the cleric is the opposite. I hate how flat it is, and how all of the gods apparently give almost the exact same powers to their champions. Wizards make sense that way, they are all learning from past generations, so there is bound to be a similarity.

Clerics though? A War Cleric and a Tempest cleric have, what, two differences? I am working on an overhaul where the clerics only have a few abilities in common, and the rest depend on the domain. Your cleric will have far more to differentiate it from others, rather than mostly being the same. Basically, I want a swiss army knife, and Warlock accomplishes that quite well. Cleric is the machete, but sometimes the machete has a slightly different grip, or a different Logo on the blade.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I really don't see how a single spell that makes a healing elixer makes the class a healer. Why is it even relevant whether it has restoration or whatever? I don't expect an alchemist to have those spells either, but I do excpect basic healing and buffs!

And beyond that, why should the warlock be locked in to some peoples' conception, rather than having spells, patrons, and Invocations that allow the class to play to a broader set of concepts?

And while I don't see the warlock as anything like the cleric, i don't care if the class comes across that way to others.

None of my warlocks have ever been anyone's servant, but if yours is, you do you. <shrug>

But either way, the ability to brew a damn potion does not change the tone, concept, theme, or roll, of the class.
 

Is there an inherent problem with the Warlock being a Cleric with different mechanics?
I think it's a sound principle that different core classes have different identities, and that different mechanics represent different forms of power. If the warlock is simply a cleric that has a different casting system and list for no particular reason, then that's page space in the book that could be better spent on a more distinctive class. Fortunately, it's not.

That is basically how I view them, and have since the beginning.
I feel like that's a missed opportunity for you in exploring the differences -- and potential tensions -- between divine magic and pact magic. Let's take Asmodeus as an example, because he is well established in the core lore as a patron of both clerics and warlocks. What makes a cleric of Asmodeus a fundamentally different core class than a warlock? Well, a cleric has an ideological commitment to her patron. She's a true believer, on Team Asmodeus heart and soul. His goals are her goals. Her alignment is thus unlikely to stray far from Lawful Evil (although never say never under 5E alignment philosophy). This faith is the source of her power, what it means to be a cleric.

None of this is true of a warlock. A pact is an economic exchange. The warlock fulfills the terms of his contract not out of commitment to or belief in or affection for Asmodeus, but because Asmodeus is giving him the power he wants for his own purposes. In a strange way, he and Asmodeus almost negotiate as equals. Now, he might be an evil bastard and be amicable to Asmodeus' goals, but they're still not his goals. And he might just as easily abhor everything Asmodeus stands for and actively oppose the archdevil's clergy wherever possible (although doing so openly enough to piss Ol' Ruby Rod off is of course dangerous for his health). So his alignment can be pretty much anything.

Isn't this just a bit more interesting than saying, "Well, the difference is that the warlock knows eldritch blast and refreshes spell slots on a short rest"?

Cleric is actually at the top of my list for classes that need a full overhaul, because I find them bland.
I don't entirely disagree. But that's a mechanical problem, not a flavor problem. You can borrow mechanical tools like a limited quota of spells known from the warlock (and sorcerer, and bard...) in order to make individual clerics more distinctive, without giving up on their identity and just rolling them into another class.

And I will say as a counterpoint: how often have you actually played a cleric? Because in my experience, the 5E cleric always having its domain spells prepared has a surprisingly profound effect on how clerics of different domains approach adventures.

As far as "The problem", there are two ways to look at it. From a story point of view it's fine in the world, and the patrons clearly allow it. From a mechanics point of view, it is a problem, one that can be handled at the table level, just like the Hex+Bag-o-rats that everyone was up in arms about a short while back, and probably much longer before that.
I think there's a slight difference between setting up a bag-o'-rats exploit and simply saying "I cast this spell. Okay? Good. Then I short rest. Okay?" And you still haven't answered the question of why it should have to be handled at the table level. If an obvious exploit has to be handled at the table level, that is a rules failure. And since we're dealing with a playtest document here, now would seem like the appropriate time to make sure the rules don't fail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lanliss

Explorer
I think it's a sound principle that different core classes have different identities, and that different mechanics represent different forms of power. If the warlock is simply a cleric that has a different casting system and list for no particular reason, then that's page space in the book that could be better spent on a more distinctive class. Fortunately, it's not.

I feel like that's a missed opportunity for you in exploring the differences -- and potential tensions -- between divine magic and pact magic. Let's take Asmodeus as an example, because he is well established in the core lore as a patron of both clerics and warlocks. What makes a cleric of Asmodeus a fundamentally different core class than a warlock? Well, a cleric has an ideological commitment to her patron. She's a true believer, on Team Asmodeus heart and soul. His goals are her goals. Her alignment is thus unlikely to stray far from Lawful Evil (although never say never under 5E alignment philosophy). This faith is the source of her power, what it means to be a cleric.

None of this is true of a warlock. A pact is an economic exchange. The warlock fulfills the terms of his contract not out of commitment to or belief in or affection for Asmodeus, but because Asmodeus is giving him the power he wants for his own purposes. In a strange way, he and Asmodeus almost negotiate as equals. Now, he might be an evil bastard and be amicable to Asmodeus' goals, but they're still not his goals. And he might just as easily abhor everything Asmodeus stands for and actively oppose the archdevil's clergy wherever possible (although doing so openly enough to piss Ol' Ruby Rod off is of course dangerous for his health). So his alignment can be pretty much anything.

Isn't this just a bit more interesting than saying, "Well, the difference is that the warlock knows eldritch blast and refreshes spell slots on a short rest"?

I don't entirely disagree. But that's a mechanical problem, not a flavor problem. You can borrow mechanical tools like a limited quota of spells known from the warlock (and sorcerer, and bard...) in order to make individual clerics more distinctive, without giving up on their identity and just rolling them into another class.

And I will say as a counterpoint: how often have you actually played a cleric? Because in my experience, the 5E cleric always having its domain spells prepared has a surprisingly profound effect on how clerics of different domains approach adventures.

I think there's a slight difference between setting up a bag-o'-rats exploit and simply saying "I cast this spell. Okay? Good. Then I short rest. Okay?" And you still haven't answered the question of why it should have to be handled at the table level. If an obvious exploit has to be handled at the table level, that is a rules failure. And since we're dealing with a playtest document here, now would seem like the appropriate time to make sure the rules don't fail.

While it is generally a good idea to have different classes be different, I do not consider that as a requirement that Warlocks be Evil, or even that sketchy. What I meant by them being the same is that they both gain powers from an extra-dimensional being of great power. I don't understand why one type of extra-dimensional being gets considered as evil, or at least "not good", just because people have to actually earn the powers, rather than be chosen as a champion for free. I don't like any of the "Monster X(Devils, Fiends, Angels, Monstrosities) is always alignment Y", so I ignore them. I wouldn't say all of my fiends are good, but at least one is, and most of them are Neutral based on how often they devote their energy to saving the world.

As for how I plan to change them, it will still be different from the warlock. Short rest recharge, very few abilities in the Base class, most of the abilities in the Domains. Plus the Domain locked "Invocations", a few of which will be "Cast (spell) from your Domain list at will without using a spell slot", so a Cleric of Tempest Domain is always a Tempest cleric, and not only when they have a spell slot to spare on their Domain spell.

I have not played a Cleric yet, not because I hate them but because I have not found a character who actually fits the story of a cleric. My main issue is with the limited number of changes a Domain makes to your character, and the fact that the most defining part of the domain is limited in power by the spell slot system. I am sure I will one of these days, but as is I cannot get excited about any of the mechanics or story of clerics.

As far as the Rats/Potions dilemma, I honestly don't understand how it isn't a table issue. If a table considers it a problem, they can stop it as needed. That leaves tables that don't see it as a problem able to play it as is. It isn't a rules failure, it is a simple fact that some tables will view it differently. I don't consider it a "problem", until my players spend an entire session doing it, and that gives enemies plenty of time to do the same, or to finish their goals of world domination. They are productive villains, so they would probably go for world domination. So, when my players wander out of the woods, loaded down with their 50 2d4+2 potions, they can use them while fighting the Infinite Army of Chaos, which has invaded and conquered the world.
 

While it is generally a good idea to have different classes be different, I do not consider that as a requirement that Warlocks be Evil, or even that sketchy.
The word "warlock" is a clue. Evil is not a requirement, but sketchy definitely is.

What I meant by them being the same is that they both gain powers from an extra-dimensional being of great power. I don't understand why one type of extra-dimensional being gets considered as evil, or at least "not good", just because people have to actually earn the powers, rather than be chosen as a champion for free.
You've got it backwards. They're not "not good" because they're warlock patrons; they're warlock patrons because they're "not good". A warlock is the guy who seeks "not good" entities out and makes bargains with them at substantial risk to his own health, sanity, and soul. It's dangerous and transgressive magic that most other characters think is a Bad Idea. If you want to do nice, safe, happy things for a nice, safe, happy patron, look under P for paladin.

I don't like any of the "Monster X(Devils, Fiends, Angels, Monstrosities) is always alignment Y", so I ignore them.
You can do whatever you like in your campaign, but you should keep in mind when talking about the core game that the core game does not run under the same rules your campaign does. The warlock class was written with the understanding that a pact with an fiend is a pact with "a being whose aims are evil, even if you strive against those aims. Such beings desire the corruption or destruction of all things, ultimately including you."

As for how I plan to change them, it will still be different from the warlock. Short rest recharge, very few abilities in the Base class, most of the abilities in the Domains. Plus the Domain locked "Invocations", a few of which will be "Cast (spell) from your Domain list at will without using a spell slot", so a Cleric of Tempest Domain is always a Tempest cleric, and not only when they have a spell slot to spare on their Domain spell.
Careful. The amount of spells that you can safely grant at-will casting for is pretty limited. You'll note that most warlock invocations that grant spells are actually more restrictive than standard warlock spellcasting, requiring both a spell slot and a long rest to recharge. If a warlock has this sort of restriction on bane or confusion, I can't see the Tempest cleric getting thunderwave or ice storm at will.

I have not played a Cleric yet, not because I hate them but because I have not found a character who actually fits the story of a cleric. My main issue is with the limited number of changes a Domain makes to your character, and the fact that the most defining part of the domain is limited in power by the spell slot system.
Try it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Cleric domains are probably the most defining subclass system of any class.

As far as the Rats/Potions dilemma, I honestly don't understand how it isn't a table issue. If a table considers it a problem, they can stop it as needed. That leaves tables that don't see it as a problem able to play it as is.
By this logic, is there anything that can't be handwaved into a "table issue"? "The truenamer class literally doesn't work as written -- but that's fine, because if the table considers it a problem, they can fix it!" What is the RPG writer's job here?
 

pemerton

Legend
Does anyone else besides me find it extremely funny that in D&D-land, apparently the primary benefit of marriage is a temporary +2 bonus to your AC and saving throws? At least in 5E.

What a messed-up world that implies.
I was gonna post it, but thought I'd better read through the thread first to see if anyone else had noticed.

(And there's no shame in being ninja-ed by Hemlock!)

The power of love empowers us to fight harder for the one we love than we ever could alone.
But only for 1 day? And only if the gods approve?
 

Lanliss

Explorer
The word "warlock" is a clue. Evil is not a requirement, but sketchy definitely is.

You've got it backwards. They're not "not good" because they're warlock patrons; they're warlock patrons because they're "not good". A warlock is the guy who seeks "not good" entities out and makes bargains with them at substantial risk to his own health, sanity, and soul. It's dangerous and transgressive magic that most other characters think is a Bad Idea. If you want to do nice, safe, happy things for a nice, safe, happy patron, look under P for paladin.

You can do whatever you like in your campaign, but you should keep in mind when talking about the core game that the core game does not run under the same rules your campaign does. The warlock class was written with the understanding that a pact with an fiend is a pact with "a being whose aims are evil, even if you strive against those aims. Such beings desire the corruption or destruction of all things, ultimately including you."

Careful. The amount of spells that you can safely grant at-will casting for is pretty limited. You'll note that most warlock invocations that grant spells are actually more restrictive than standard warlock spellcasting, requiring both a spell slot and a long rest to recharge. If a warlock has this sort of restriction on bane or confusion, I can't see the Tempest cleric getting thunderwave or ice storm at will.

Try it. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Cleric domains are probably the most defining subclass system of any class.

By this logic, is there anything that can't be handwaved into a "table issue"? "The truenamer class literally doesn't work as written -- but that's fine, because if the table considers it a problem, they can fix it!" What is the RPG writer's job here?

Just googled Warlock Definition. "A man who practices Witchcraft; A sorcerer". Nothing about Evil. The Merriam-Webster site says it is "A man who practices the Black Arts", but that is what all magic that wasn't "Cleric" based was called, so I don't put much stock in that. Looked through all of the flavor bits on the opening page for Warlock in the PHB. No mention of Evil. The closest thing it gets to saying patrons are bad is "Mysterious beings" in the last paragraph of the first section. Also, the "Sworn and Beholden" section even says that the relationship can be the same as that of a Cleric and their Deity.

I think the primary difference is in how Ambiguous the patron/Deity is. An absolute force of Evil would be more like a Deity, IMO, while something that has motives that actually change once-in-a-thousand-years is more like a Patron. A fiend might want souls to power it, or want you to bring down his competitor so he can bring a kinder side to the 9 hells. An Archfey might want you to collect beautiful slaves for her, or want you to pick some flowers every month. Deities have a specific, pre-determined goal, the force behind their godhood, and woe betide the cleric who wavers from that path.

Looking over the domain spell, you may be right that they are a bit much to give as an at-will. Maybe just bonuses to those spells will work, since a Cleric will be guaranteed to have them anyway. Things like Bless being a d6, or Faerie fire having a +2 to the DC. I don't know, I will think a bit harder another time. As for playing one, I might get a chance eventually, and I am not so stubborn as to refuse to try it jsut because I don't like the looks of it. I just need to find the story I want to tell for a Cleric.

Many things cannot be stopped at the table level as easily as saying "No shenanigans". I don't imagine there are many DMs who think "Attacking" is a problem, and so ban it at their table. However, things like this are clearly shenanigans, and not something a person in the world would stop their world saving quest to spend a day doing. I cannot even imagine a player actually saying he is going to try this exploit, and most well adjusted adults would just say OK if asked to stop. I feel like us butting heads on this topic isn't going to lead anywhere beyond a circle, and is getting in the way of the more constructive discussion happening in the top half of our posts, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the matter. If they change it to some sort of Locked spell slot system, I will use this one instead. I am sure if they don't change it You will just tell your players No when they try to pull something stupid. You seem like a reasonable person that way.
 

Just googled Warlock Definition. "A man who practices Witchcraft; A sorcerer". Nothing about Evil. The Merriam-Webster site says it is "A man who practices the Black Arts", but that is what all magic that wasn't "Cleric" based was called, so I don't put much stock in that.
There's no such thing as real magic, real witches, or real warlocks. All these words refer to imaginary concepts. So when English-speaking culture uses the words "witch" and "warlock" specifically for imaginary practitioners of malicious magic -- and, with all due respect to modern neopagans trying to redefine the words, this really is how they were and continue to be used -- that's the end of the story. That's what witches and warlocks are. There's no "truth" for the speakers to be misrepresenting or mistaken about. Saying you don't put much stock in that definition is like saying you don't put much stock in unicorns having one horn.

If that general fact about how words work isn't enough to convince you on its own, consider that warlock in the most literal sense means "oathbreaker". The war- is related to the ver- in verify and means something like "truth" or "trust"; the -lock means "liar" and (believe it or not) is from the same root. This is not a name one calls a person who is doing things of which one approves. It's as if there were a class called "Traitor" and you were telling me that characters of this class don't actually have to do any betraying.

I think the primary difference is in how Ambiguous the patron/Deity is. An absolute force of Evil would be more like a Deity, IMO, while something that has motives that actually change once-in-a-thousand-years is more like a Patron. A fiend might want souls to power it, or want you to bring down his competitor so he can bring a kinder side to the 9 hells.
That italicized quotation in my last post about corruption and destruction? I didn't just make that up. That was straight from the PHB. Again: the difference can be whatever you want it to be in your campaign, but that's not the difference that's in the core rules and you can't expect it to be the difference in future content based on the core rules.

Looking over the domain spell, you may be right that they are a bit much to give as an at-will. Maybe just bonuses to those spells will work, since a Cleric will be guaranteed to have them anyway. Things like Bless being a d6, or Faerie fire having a +2 to the DC.
A lot of the domain abilities actually do stuff like that. Cool things happen whenever a tempest cleric deals thunder or lightning damage, for instance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lanliss

Explorer
There's no such thing as real magic, real witches, or real warlocks. All these words refer to imaginary concepts. So when English-speaking culture uses the words "witch" and "warlock" specifically for imaginary practitioners of malicious magic -- and, with all due respect to modern neopagans trying to redefine the words, this really is how they were and continue to be used -- that's the end of the story. That's what witches and warlocks are. There's no "truth" for the speakers to be misrepresenting or mistaken about. Saying you don't put much stock in that definition is like saying you don't put much stock in unicorns having one horn.

If that general fact about how words work isn't enough to convince you on its own, consider that warlock in the most literal sense means "oathbreaker". The war- is related to the ver- in verify and means something like "truth" or "trust"; the -lock means "liar" and (believe it or not) is from the same root. This is not a name one calls a person who is doing things of which one approves. It's as if there were a class called "Traitor" and you were telling me that characters of this class don't actually have to do any betraying.

That italicized quotation in my last post about corruption and destruction? I didn't just make that up. That was straight from the PHB. Again: the difference can be whatever you want it to be in your campaign, but that's not the difference that's in the core rules and you can't expect it to be the difference in future content based on the core rules.

A lot of the domain abilities actually do stuff like that. Cool things happen whenever a tempest cleric deals thunder or lightning damage, for instance.

By "Don't put much stock in that" I meant it the same way as "I don't put much stock in the Salem witch trials." The fact that magic doesn't exist is irrelevant to the point, which is that all sorts of people disapprove of all sort of things, and one person/group of peoples name for that thing need not be true. There are people now who will call a doctor a warlock, the Devil, or all sorts of other mean things.

I found your quote, specifically only in the Fiend section. That doesn't at all apply to all the patrons, though I am happy to accept that my particular version of Fiends is far from the norm. The other two patrons are listed as inscrutable, or beyond understanding. At best, that hints towards their alignments being chaotic, but not by any means evil. GOO patrons might even be Unaligned, as far as their awareness stretches.

Aye, I read the cleric class, and would of course use it for inspiration on my rewrite. I wouldn't want to shut out those who are happy with the cleric as it is after all. I just want a deeper level of customization, and the Warlock scratches my itch for just the right amount.

I mentioned my specific reasons for wanting to change the cleric, but will mention them again here as they are relevant to the next point. I feel that, for a Champion of the Gods, few of their powers are actually different. Looking over the Cleric with a careful eye, I think my main issue is Channel divinity turn/destroy undead. That single ability shows up in 6 of their allotted slots for progression, and does nothing interesting. I would probably cut it out, or slide it down to one of the domains, to make room for more Domain specific Features.

I would also think about adding a third layer to customization, like the Warlock has with the Book/Chain/Blade. There have been multiple stories about clerics, or at least people who fight the infernal side of things, with different ways of showing those powers. Rituals, holy weapons or relics, or advanced knowledge all come to mind. I would need to think of good ways to represent these that do not mirror the Warlock features. The Weapons in particular would be an issue, as it basically comes to mind like a Divine version of the Blade pact.
 

MagicSN

First Post
Edit: or, you could keep all of the 5E classes as is, just rewrite the way you write dungeons, and just let the chips fall where they may. That's basically what I've been doing so far with 5E but I could ramp it up by adding more monsters that bypass HP (old-style Green Slime) and/or kill you when you hit zero HP, golems that are flat-out immune to spells and to weapons with less than +2 enchantment, mind flayers with 90% magic resistance, save-or-die poison traps, etc. It would basically be "5E PCs in an AD&D dungeon." Might be worth trying.

Magic Resistance and immunity to spells has the serious disadvantage that then the player who plays the caster just sits and waits while the non-casters can have fun in the battle. Seriously flawed strategy of encounter building - 90% resistance even worse. Unless you bring several types of enemies, so everyone has something "todo".

Best regards,
Steffen
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The "Warlock patrons can't be good" ship sailed long ago, and was a bad ship anyway.

4e Patrona included The Lady of The White Well, who is explicitly a victim of jealousy and a curse, and simply wants free.

5e includes the Seeker, and the ArchFey makes no mention of Seelie or Unseelie, or any suggestion of what kind of Fey make pacts.

The idea was posited a while back that simply the fact that the Patron is making pacts instead of granting power like clerics get theirs, means that Warlock patrons are not "on the level". I...find this argument egregiously ridiculous.

Great Old Ones aren't even necessarily aware of the Pact, and when they are their motivations are basically unknowable. Arch Fey...are Fey. Just like in folklore, they range greatly in nature, from helpful and nice, to dark and vicious or outright malevolent. Nothing about the flavor tells us hat warlocks only make pacts with the "bad" ones.

And just as important, they are bloody Fey![i/] Deals, trades etc. are the classic Fey thing. Good, bad, and unaligned.

Lastly, servitude? Really?
 

Remathilis

Legend
Titania of the Summer Court is mentioned as a patron in SCAG; she's NG or CG, IIRC.

The Undying Court of Eberron (all G or N) are mentioned as Undying Patrons as well.

So there are cannon Good-aligned patrons. Scant few, but there.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
edit: ninja,d by [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]

What really bugs me here, is that the flavor of the warlock includes the obsessive pursuit of *knowledge*, not just power, and again, the good warlock with an ill considered Pact with something evil is the classic warlock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Titania of the Summer Court is mentioned as a patron in SCAG; she's NG or CG, IIRC.

The Undying Court of Eberron (all G or N) are mentioned as Undying Patrons as well.

So there are cannon Good-aligned patrons. Scant few, but there.

Them, other "summer Fey" like Oberon, plus the Seeker, the Undying Light is...kinda not even a patron, in the normal sense, and Hexblades get power from powerful artifact weapons. Even the Raven Queen is ambiguous, at worst.

And even with the actually evil Patrons, like fiends, the warlock is just as likely to have made a deal in desperation and be trying to find a way out, or a way to fight their patron, so even evil patrons don't mean evil warlocks.
 

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
edit: ninja,d by [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]

What really bugs me here, is that the flavor of the warlock includes the obsessive pursuit of *knowledge*, not just power, and again, the good warlock with an ill considered Pact with something evil is the classic warlock.

That does seem odd. The obsessive pursuit of knowledge sounds right up the alley of the Tomelock (GOO-pact for Lovercraftian archetpes, Infernal-pact basically gives you Faust), but Chain and Blade pact boons? Definitely strike me as more for power-obsessives.
 

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
The Undying Court of Eberron (all G or N) are mentioned as Undying Patrons as well.

This goes further to blur the lines between Cleric and Warlock, since the Undying Court are also explicitly deities as far as offering Divine spell-casting goes.

Though that of course could just be seen as a setting-specific quirk of Eberron, which has always been rather murky about the source of divine magic and what separates it from arcane magic, thematically if not mechanically.
 

Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top