Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Wizards & Warlocks -- Hexblades, Raven Queens, and Lore Mastery!

Master of Hexes
Starting at 14th level, you can use your
Hexblade’s Curse again without resting, but
when you apply it to a new target, the curse
immediately ends on the previous target.


Does this mean you can cast it one more time, or over and over again? And does the 1 minute duration reset upon a new target, or does it continue from the previous target?
 

jrowland

First Post
Whelp, someone has likely beaten me to the punch already, but for what it's worth, no, the sorcerer doesn't get more slots than wizards, full stop. You can check the player's handbook, they have the exact same spell slots per level progression.

As many others have pointed out, sorcery points are scarce, and they have to be split between metamagic and increased spell usage. At level 20, a sorcerer can get 10 1st level spells back, or 2 5th level spells and a 2nd level, with numerous other sundry combinations available.

You know what the wizard gets? Arcane recovery. A 20th level wizard can get back 10 levels worth of spell slots 1/day after a short rest. This gives a negligible advantage at the high end (the sorcerer is up 1 2nd level spell over the wizard) and they're tied at 1st level spells. Effectively, the sorcerer has no advantage over the wizard and he has to use all of his primary resource to do so.

This is why this subclass is really a death knell for the sorcerer as-is; because the wizard gets all those spell slots back as the result of a single class feature, with all his other resources untouched, while the sorcerer has to dump all of his entire central class feature into trying to equal the wizard's mileage. If the wizard is now more flexible with his individual spells as well, then why even bring a sorcerer?

Ok, I forgot about Arcane Recovery...but then again, its after a rest. So it comes down to each table. ! encounter per day game: Sorcerer wins (no arcane recovery for you wizard). Dungeon crawl that allows for short rest? Wizard breaks even with slots. Could be a wash or could favor one over the other based on table. Not an issue, in other words.

So ok, now the sorcerer loses slots to do metamagic, and the wizard loses slots to do metamagic. That's a wash.

It baffles me that it escapes people how broken this is. Naturally some of the highest damage spells like fireball and lightning bolt (which are both above the curve for their level) have only one fixed damage type, and this means you can prepare those spells all damn day, because who cares if a red dragon shows up? Your spells are still 100% effective with no resource expenditure whatsoever. Functionally this is means there's no way to reduce the incoming damage of the wizard unless the target has resistance to all elemental damage. Basically this reduces the planning a wizard has to do with their prepared spells by an unparalleled amount, since they can pack a few generalist damage spells and simply rely on those forever with their incredible flexibility.

Yes. That is awesome. That is the Lore Masters schtick. Pretty cool. But that assumes the only avenue to defeating foes is damage. I guess Enchanter type wizards are just horribly broken too? What do you mean Charm Monster overcomes Poison resistance? Phantasmal Killer over comes fire immunity! You get the point.

Advantage has typically been held to be worth around +4-5 based on several factors, so a 7 point shift is already better than it.

As I said, in the most extreme case its 7 points. It will mostly fall into advantage territory.

Additionally, if the enemy had advantage on the save (such as with magic resistance) then the lowest you could get it is a neutral roll. This option doesn't deal with advantage, so it's good no matter what and can stack with any disadvantage your team imposes.

Besides Ray of Enfeeblement, I can't (off the top of my head) figure out how you impose Dis on a save..I suppose there are some Dex based saves with restrained, etc. So ok, they can stack some abilities with allies (or multi-round combos). Yay! They can do stuff every other class can do with enough min/max optimizing.

An adult red dragon has a 7 point difference between its dex save and its con save, and the ancient swings even further with a 9 point difference. Remember also this has synergy with the free metamagic they have, and they can increase the DC further by 2.

Sweet. 11 point difference. So the Lore Masters spell will likely land...well, except for that whole Legendary Save thing, it will land! well most likely land. When Lore master is at a level to face an Ancient Red Dragon he will do really well. Except when the dragon bites him.

I do think its one of those things that looks more OP than it is. And for anyone else following along, I am not suggesting its fine as is. I am saying its not as bad as you think, and only actually playing it will tell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The only way this Pact makes any sense to me is through multi-classing into it once you have found one of these powerful weapons. If you are adventuring and come across a powerful sentience weapon, it promises you more power if you "give yourself to it". You then use the weapon to tap into new abilities that it grants you. This would then manifest as multi-classing as a Hexblade.

Heirloom.

Gift from previous wielder.

Thing you created yourself, with epic and one of a kind materials, in a once in a life time Time and place, under super natural circumstances. This combines well with either of the two before it, or both.

Lucky/fated discovery.

The thing called to you in your dreams and when you woke, a voice guided you to it, through various dangers and obstacles, into supernatural realms and with the aid of strange creatures, until finally you stood in the quiet place where the artifact rested, and when you laid your hands upon it you, and your fate, were irrevocably altered. You hope for good, but fear it is for ill.

It was a regular weapon, and you a regular person, until [event], and then you and the sword (or flail or stick or whatever) were irrevocably blah blah see above. (See, the princes of Leah, in the Shannara series, and how he Sword of Leah became magical, and in becoming so, changed its weilders as well.

Literally a basic magic item that is *gaining* power as you do.

I'm sure others can think of more, and each of those has many variations within them, not to mention combinations. Every one can be a level 1 concept, and some only make sense as a level 1 concept.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
That is not an argument I am making. Sorcerer was a fix for a problem/playstyle that is no longer valid. Sorcerer is the odd duck, imho, not the wizard, and not the Lore Master Archetype (which fits fine with other classes sans sorcerer, and other wizards).

The odd duck is the sorcerer.

Look, it is ok that you don't like the sorcerer. But you are going too far by saying it is unneeded and invalid. Yes, maybe the Lore master could be on line with all other classes, maybe the sorcerer is underpowered the odd one out. But to then go out and say that the solution is to get rid of it, that is too far.

Can you have a wizard that actively wants to get rid f his magic?, That didn't chose to have magic? that isn't a bookworm? That isn't actively seeking for more magic? That has an irrational and emotional approach to magic?. The answer to all of these is no. It has always been no and will remain to be no.What if you want one of these to be yes? the answer is the sorcerer. The sorcerer fills the gaps that the wizard won't and cannot cover by definition. As long as the wizard remains an scholar at heart there will be need and conceptual space for the sorcerer. (When did you see Elsa studying old dusty tomes to prepare her magics for the day? Surely her quest for control was an intellectual voyage, was it?)

I know I'm at an extreme were I just can't stand all of the trappings that make the wizard a wizard. But I'm not the only one that likes the sorcerer precisely because it's free of these, and there is plenty of players that like the sorcerer for so many other reasons. Getting rid of the sorcerer at this point is a net loss for the game. It might mean more toys for the spoiled wizard, but it also means that many archetypes and characters just go puff and vanish without remedy.
 

cbwjm

Legend
Can you have a wizard that actively wants to get rid f his magic?, That didn't chose to have magic? that isn't a bookworm? That isn't actively seeking for more magic? That has an irrational and emotional approach to magic?. The answer to all of these is no. It has always been no and will remain to be no.What if you want one of these to be yes? the answer is the sorcerer. The sorcerer fills the gaps that the wizard won't and cannot cover by definition. As long as the wizard remains an scholar at heart there will be need and conceptual space for the sorcerer. (When did you see Elsa studying old dusty tomes to prepare her magics for the day? Surely her quest for control was an intellectual voyage, was it?)

I'm not advocating getting rid of the sorcerer, but you can do all of those things by customising the wizard.
 

Saeviomagy

Adventurer
I'm comparing loremaster to diviner, and I'm find myself torn as to which is better. Loremaster has that neat expertise, but a diviner can just drop divination spells to find the same info, then get the slots back. Loremaster can pull some neat tricks changing spells, but a diviner can pull some arguably better ones by knowing a die roll in advance.

Prodigious memory and master of magic are pretty great: The ability to have the right spell on hand for a situation can be priceless. I suppose that a well played diviner could potentially end up in a similar situation, although he's restricted in what spell lists he has access to.

I think the biggest difference will end up being in raw damage vs more knowledge about what is to come. Given that, you're looking at a highly DM and player dependant difference: if your DM is likely to mess your divinations about, go with loremaster and never look back.

Looking through the other subclasses, I think that's going to be the general result: a loremaster is more effective in terms of damage, but he's going to end up running down his spell slots much faster than the other wizards, and once he's done with spell slots, he's down to having expertise in some skills that tend to have a very variable worth.

I think if you have a group that embrace the 5 minute work day, the loremaster is incredibly good. Otherwise, I'd be looking to the other wizard subclasses for better longevity.
 


cbwjm

Legend
About as much if you can model everything in the game with a fighter and a wizard
Totally. Paladin, ranger, barbarian could easily be a fighter subclass, I'd be happy running a fighter with the outlander background as a Ranger. Fighter with the criminal background works well enough as a thief. Although there is more crossover with sorcerer, I think it should be simple enough to run a bard or warlock or even a cleric with the wizard class and an appropriate subclass and background.
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
Can you have a wizard that actively wants to get rid f his magic?, That didn't chose to have magic? that isn't a bookworm? That isn't actively seeking for more magic? That has an irrational and emotional approach to magic?. The answer to all of these is no. It has always been no and will remain to be no.What if you want one of these to be yes? the answer is the sorcerer. The sorcerer fills the gaps that the wizard won't and cannot cover by definition. As long as the wizard remains an scholar at heart there will be need and conceptual space for the sorcerer. (When did you see Elsa studying old dusty tomes to prepare her magics for the day? Surely her quest for control was an intellectual voyage, was it?)

Actually, a Cleric would fit the bill for those, and in some cases fit better than a Sorcerer would have. The fluff on Clerics is really damn weird this edition, and the metaphysical overlap with Warlocks isn't helping any.

I know I'm at an extreme were I just can't stand all of the trappings that make the wizard a wizard. But I'm not the only one that likes the sorcerer precisely because it's free of these, and there is plenty of players that like the sorcerer for so many other reasons. Getting rid of the sorcerer at this point is a net loss for the game. It might mean more toys for the spoiled wizard, but it also means that many archetypes and characters just go puff and vanish without remedy.

The wizard hasn't been spoiled for two editions now. I know 3.x left deep scars in many people (and they weren't even the worst things in 3.x), but those days are long over. In 5e, now, the classes are more fudgeable than ever. With sublasses letting you essentially "Mix and match" different class combinations. The Wizard has the Bladesinger for a bit of Fighter, and the Fighter has the Eldritch Knight for a bit of Wizard. Paladins have oath of the ancients for a more druidic bent. Clerics can learn arcane spells, or act like a Rogue. Warlocks can make pacts with legitimate gods. Overlap is happening, and will continue to happen for what is left of this edition. Niche protection is almost completely dead.

What's happening here is that the Sorcerer bubble is finally bursting. It probably needs a proper revising like what the Ranger got.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Totally. Paladin, ranger, barbarian could easily be a fighter subclass, I'd be happy running a fighter with the outlander background as a Ranger. Fighter with the criminal background works well enough as a thief. Although there is more crossover with sorcerer, I think it should be simple enough to run a bard or warlock or even a cleric with the wizard class and an appropriate subclass and background.

Whereas I want nothing to do with a game like DnD that puts all of those into subclasses. Subclasses aren't even a a fraction as big as I would need them to be for that.

Also for me fighter will never be a good fit for ranger, even a little bit. I can at least see the logic of a rogue subclass, but not at all fighter.

Heck, I'd rather have no fighter or wizard class, and have the concepts we tend to put in them as their own classes, than the other way around.

what I mean by game like DnD is, a game based on distinct abilities that a given character has limited access to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ahrimon

Bourbon and Dice
You got all that from my lone post directed toward you?

I highly suspect you are conflating me with someone else you're having an argument with.

I think that was me. I replied to something, he replied to me, you replied to him, he jumped on you, we do the hokey pokey and we turn ourselves around, that's what it's all about.

What?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the warlock can't do anything that round. I'm saying that they can't take any other action that round in order to use a feature the next round. If the fighter had to forgo their actions on one round in order to use action surge the next or if the Paladin had to give up their action in order to smite the following turn I think people would be up in arms.

The warlock can hex, if they don't already have a hex up, or any other bonus action any round whether they are switching weapons or getting to attack. But the opportunity cost to use this invocation is lose an action to switch or lock yourself into one specific weapon. I think this is bad design. It's easy enough to make a invocation that adds a particular feature without requiring a specific weapon. For example, instead of a flail your weapon warps and twists in reality and gains +5ft reach. Instead of a mace your weapon is surrounded by an infernal force that blasts out when hit. Instead of a Greatsword your weapon is surrounded by energy and does extra damage of the weapons type. Even the bow is bad because it, like the greatsword, eliminate small characters from using these options. If they opened bow to any bow then small characters could create a short bow and it would work.

They are flavorful, but they're also tied to mechanics. It would be no different if they said that in order to use the two weapon fighting style you had to use scimitars or that if you wanted to use dueling it had to be a longsword. Flavor with open mechanics is 1000% better than flavor with locked mechanics. One provides options, the other limits them.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Whereas I want nothing to do with a game like DnD that puts all of those into subclasses. Subclasses aren't even a a fraction as big as I would need them to be for that.

Also for me fighter will never be a good fit for ranger, even a little bit. I can at least see the logic of a rogue subclass, but not at all fighter.

Heck, I'd rather have no fighter or wizard class, and have the concepts we tend to put in them as their own classes, than the other way around.

what I mean by game like DnD is, a game based on distinct abilities that a given character has limited access to.
Yeah, that's why they don't have just four classes, like early play test versions.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app
 

cbwjm

Legend
Whereas I want nothing to do with a game like DnD that puts all of those into subclasses. Subclasses aren't even a a fraction as big as I would need them to be for that.

Also for me fighter will never be a good fit for ranger, even a little bit. I can at least see the logic of a rogue subclass, but not at all fighter.

Heck, I'd rather have no fighter or wizard class, and have the concepts we tend to put in them as their own classes, than the other way around.

what I mean by game like DnD is, a game based on distinct abilities that a given character has limited access to.

I'm not saying we should get rid of those classes either, my original comment was literally all of the backgrounds listed by Moonsong could easily be done with the wizard class instead of a sorcerer, all it really needs is a change to the fluff of the class and some minor mechanical changes. You could even get away with no mechanical changes if you just ignore the spellbook section of the wizard and just run off what spells you have prepared as your spell list. In so doing I could make a wizard that actively wants to get rid of his magic. That didn't chose to have magic. That isn't a bookworm. That isn't actively seeking for more magic. That has an irrational and emotional approach to magic.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
This. Even if the warlock is my favorite class ever, I dont understand why ''how you get your powers'' have such a big impact on arcane spellcasters. I mean, we dont have different martial classes because I bought my sword instead of having it being gifted to me, or because I use it left-handed.
And bard, if changed to chanter (I, for one, am thrilled by the Pillars of Eternity PnP), could be a druid subclass based of floklore/ancient spirits inhabiting songs and tales of different people. Druid are more than just tree-huger, animal summoner hermits.
 

ppaladin123

Adventurer
I think the hexblade could just be handled with an invocation: requirement (pact of blade): you gain proficiency with medium armor and shields. Would require a 3 level dip at least so it is not easily exploitable by multiclass.

Of course errata to give this to the pact of blade upon taking the pact (same with valor bard) would work too but WotC is very skittish about errata these days (I think they overcorrected for 4e excesses).
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
This. Even if the warlock is my favorite class ever, I dont understand why ''how you get your powers'' have such a big impact on arcane spellcasters. I mean, we dont have different martial classes because I bought my sword instead of having it being gifted to me, or because I use it left-handed.

It has historic reasons. When they created the game, they wanted to make a generic spellcaster , that is the source of "magic-user", they wanted it to stand for all possible casters. The problem is, the creators of the game had a quite specific archetype in mind when they designed it. Thus the book, the emphasis on smarts, the hunt of magic as a reason to adventure. And those elements were core to the class. Yet designers treated this quite specific thing as if it was truly generic. And it showed.

Want to be a witch? spellbook, Want to play Circe the demigodess? spellbook, want to play Samantha or Jenny? spellbook, Gandalf? spellbook. A fairy? spellbook.


It was a square hole where we were expected to force pegs of all shapes into.

A few decades later the designers accidentally "found" the sorcerer when looking for an alternative to vancian casting. An I mean accidentally found, because the sorcerer was a vehicle for different mechanics. Yet, the different origin rang a bell, Jenny, Samantha, Circe, Sabrina, Fairies, Nymphs all of them fit better under that version of the sorcerer than under any other version of the wizard -ok, Sabrina fits under the 5e wizard-. Later another story with other mechanics was created and the warlock was born, fully cementing distinct origin/distinct class and mechanics.

If the magic user had been truly generic we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the wizard wouldn't be as iconic as it is. As long as the wizard remains as iconic and with that specific story, we will need alternatives for the other possible origins and approaches to magic. Or not, but that is the quickest way to tell a group of players you don't want them at the same table.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I'm not saying we should get rid of those classes either, my original comment was literally all of the backgrounds listed by Moonsong could easily be done with the wizard class instead of a sorcerer, all it really needs is a change to the fluff of the class and some minor mechanical changes. You could even get away with no mechanical changes if you just ignore the spellbook section of the wizard and just run off what spells you have prepared as your spell list. In so doing I could make a wizard that actively wants to get rid of his magic. That didn't chose to have magic. That isn't a bookworm. That isn't actively seeking for more magic. That has an irrational and emotional approach to magic.

Sure, you could reflavor a wizard that way, but I think the point is that you can't make a wizard into a sorcerer without repurposing things, and that even then it will feel (at least for may people) like a repurposed kludge, and that is enough of a justification to have the sorcerer around.

The idea is that "complete refluff and some mechanical changes" is too much to genuinely say, "you can make these backgrounds using the wizard.

I mean, I could build a monk with the wizard with some reflavorin and a few mechanical changes, but I don't think it is a stretch to say I can't make a character with a monk's background/concept using the wizard. Becaus doing so requires houseruling the wizard.

Although, that said, I played a wizard-as-monk in 4e, and it was The Best.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yeah, that's why they don't have just four classes, like early play test versions.

To be fair, that kind of design can work really well. See: Star Wars Saga Edition. But that is also a game that needed a damn character builder. Not because the math was complicated, but because there were so many distinct options to go through to mke a character. But the system works very well, and models an enormous array of character archetypes.

But in a game with subclasses that are as small as 5e DnD? Not a chance.
 


MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I'm not saying we should get rid of those classes either, my original comment was literally all of the backgrounds listed by Moonsong could easily be done with the wizard class instead of a sorcerer, all it really needs is a change to the fluff of the class and some minor mechanical changes. You could even get away with no mechanical changes if you just ignore the spellbook section of the wizard and just run off what spells you have prepared as your spell list. In so doing I could make a wizard that actively wants to get rid of his magic. That didn't chose to have magic. That isn't a bookworm. That isn't actively seeking for more magic. That has an irrational and emotional approach to magic.

rule 0 fallacy?
 


Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top