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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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".

It's almost as if the DM is building an adventure and not just a string of momentary "encounters"!

(See: previous discussion on 5E pacing, problems thereof.)

If some challenges require intra-party cooperation and special skills--if a party composed purely of wizards will struggle to complete the adventure, and so will a party composed purely of fighters--that is a feature, not a bug. Too many things in 5E's design can be beaten just by applying several PCs' worth of action economy to them, regardless of what the PC is. Everyone has "something to do," as you suggest, because you can just plink away at the iron golem with your Chill Touch cantrip and it works--and that makes 5E Iron Golems incredibly boring and easy. If you have a go-to monster-killing strategy, you probably don't even have to change it when you meet an Iron Golem--you kill the Iron Golem in exactly the same way you would kill four Ogres in one body. It's sooooo boring to me as a DM (and therefore game designer).

It remains to be seen whether 5E can be revamped back into AD&D style, or whether it's easier to incorporate a few worthwhile 5E rules (e.g. disadvantage instead of -4 modifier while blinded) into AD&D. I haven't had time to do anything along those lines since this thread started so I have no additional data there.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I'd say any Fey or GOO Warlock could reasonably a knowledge seeker, either just as much as power, or even more so. A big part of the GOO lore is that the warlock found knowledge best left alone, and refused to leave it alone. I think they did a better job of it in 4e, with the Star Pact, but even in 5e that flavor is there.

 

[Lanliss]

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.

Aye, me and Cosmic moved beyond Warlocks being evil a couple pages back. Now we are on the subject of the Patrons themselves.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

From which it does not follow that some warlocks are nice guys, any more than it follows that the Devil is a nice guy. When some ignoramus calls a doctor the Devil, he is incorrect, not in his definition of "Devil", but in his application of it to the doctor. The Devil is a mythological being of supreme evil. The ignoramus can't be wrong about that, because it's a definition springing from the cultural imagination. But the doctor, although a being, is neither mythological nor supremely evil, so it's those properties that the ignoramus is wrong about.

The fact that devils and warlocks don't exist is relevant because definitions of things that exist can be wrong to a degree. If the ignoramus defined "doctor" as a servant of the Devil, for instance, he'd be incorrect -- we can collect facts about real doctors and see that this isn't an accurate description of them.

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.

Sure. My point is that they're dangerous. If there isn't a real risk of them screwing the warlock over, whether out of malice or whimsy or indifference, then the player is missing out on an essential part of the warlock experience. This is the edgy class. This is the punk class. This is the class that breaks all the rules and tries to stay one step ahead of the consequences. If it turns out that contacting an elder god or parlaying with a fairy queen is just as safe as sitting in a library and studying a spellbook... what's the point?

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.

Or a paladin.

 

[Hussar]

While I do see the argument for warlocks to be the "punk" or edgy hero class, that doesn't necessarily make them evil. There's a bunch of genre figures that would fit that mold that aren't evil.

But, in any case, why does being the edgy, punk character mean that I can't have healing?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While I do see the argument for warlocks to be the "punk" or edgy hero class, that doesn't necessarily make them evil. There's a bunch of genre figures that would fit that mold that aren't evil.

But, in any case, why does being the edgy, punk character mean that I can't have healing?

More specifically, why can't John Constantine (who perfectly fits the description you're responding to) make a healing potion?

Bards can cast healing spells. Druids aren't divine anymore, or dedicated to good, like ever, and they heal. Paladins can heal even if they are evil bastards.

 

[MagicSN]

It's almost as if the DM is building an adventure and not just a string of momentary "encounters"!

(See: previous discussion on 5E pacing, problems thereof.)

If some challenges require intra-party cooperation and special skills--if a party composed purely of wizards will struggle to complete the adventure, and so will a party composed purely of fighters--that is a feature, not a bug.

Absolutely agreed. But NOT agreed on encounters where one player is sitting bored besides. It is not so hard to create encounters where you do NOT handle all enemies the same and do not need bad ideas like 90% magic resistance in 5e.

Hint: The best encounters always require some things to be done outside "pure combat mechanics".

Best regards,
Steffen

 

[TheCosmicKid]

More specifically, why can't John Constantine (who perfectly fits the description you're responding to) make a healing potion?

Give me a comic or show where Constantine does make a healing potion. It's... not a very common occurrence. Probably because healthy, restorative magic like that clashes with the overarching theme of his stories that magic is costly and dangerous.

More generally: Why can't he cast animal friendship or sanctuary or longstrider or Tenser's floating disk? Do you think there's a valid purpose for class-specific spell lists, and simply object to this one particular exclusion? Or are we actually discussing why there are any exclusions at all?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The obvious reason to exclude healing spells from the Wizard's list is, of course:

View attachment 83177


And, really, that's all the reason 5e needs to (not) do anything...
... in the PH.
In something as peripheral as UA? Not so much, as long as something is opt-in optional, tradtionalists can just not opt in (and look down upon, mock and deride anyone who does).


But, there is a game-play-dynamics reason, too. The Wizard, more than any other class, /is/ his spells, the spells he knows define him (and he can know more and more varied & situationally-useful spells than his close relatives, the Sorcerer & Warlock), the spells he actually casts are his primary contribution to the success of the party. Healing spells are critically important in 5e, so slots can be used for them, they often will be. When a Cleric uses his slots to heal instead of cast something more spotlight-grabbing, he still has channel divinity and he's still a bit tougher and able to contribute in combat than the Wizard. When the Druid blows his slots on healing, he can still shapechange. Similarly, the Valor Bard run out of slots by healing needs still fights, and the Lore Bard is still a skill monkey.

So 'letting' a Wizard heal wouldn't be doing him any favors.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Give me a comic or show where Constantine does make a healing potion. It's... not a very common occurrence. Probably because healthy, restorative magic like that clashes with the overarching theme of his stories that magic is costly and dangerous.

More generally: Why can't he cast animal friendship or sanctuary or longstrider or Tenser's floating disk? Do you think there's a valid purpose for class-specific spell lists, and simply object to this one particular exclusion? Or are we actually discussing why there are any exclusions at all?

I'm not sure why I should care how often it happens. John can do it, he has the skill, and nothing is stopping him. Many of his contemporaries (I'd say allies, but most of them hate him), do pretty much the same magic, but are perfectly capable of healing and such. He just tends toward different strategies, because of the kind of person he is, not the kind of magic he does.

As for class spell list, I absolutely think every class should have access to every general type of spell. I'm not arguing for warlocks or wizards getting all healing/restorative spells. I'm arguing that there is nothing bad, and plenty good, about giving them a thematically distinct spell that does some minor healing.

Just like it's fine for wizards and warlocks to have spells that boost their physical capabilities, and *also* good that some of those spells are specific to rangers and Druids, and would be even better, IMO, if a few were exclusive to the ranger.

Nuance, never absolutes, in other words.