Wither the Wizard? (or: Bards don’t have ACNE)

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
That's just a Warlock spell list with a whole bunch of extra steps and complication lol.
Well yeah, that’s the idea. The warlock spell list in current 5e is very thematic, and there’s no set of arcane spells of schools X, Y, and Z that is going to come close to reproducing it. Besides, only getting to prepare two spells per day seems like a huge nerf. Hence, my prediction that they’ll put most of the burden of making the warlock’s spell selection feel warlock-y on the “always prepared” spells, which makes sense to come from Patron, with some from Invocations for a bit of customizability.
I don't see them going that way if they want to make classes more accessible, not less.
🤷‍♀️ seems like the most accessible way to preserve the warlock’s identity to me.
Also making Warlocks wait until L3 for a patron would make all existing patrons incompatible with the 1D&D Warlock. I don't see them doing that just for symmetry's sake. Patrons will likely remain at 1. I do think some will be modified or deleted. No way Hexblade survives in the current "You need Pact of the Blade to make this not suck" form.
Well I agree with you that Patrons should be chosen at 1st level (though I think all subclasses should be, TBH). Also that Hexblade’s got to go. It was a kludge fix for the blade pact boon being bad. Now they can fix it directly and cut the awkward patron.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
I think this is a bit off:

1) They probably won't limit Paladin spells because like Rangers they're a half-caster.

2) There's no possibility they'll limit Sorcerers by school. It doesn't fit with how they've been designed in any edition, and the "ACNE" you suggest is mere symmetrism. Symmetrism is almost always wrong. Professional designers are smarter than that sort of pointless symmetry, for the most part.

3) As others have said, Wizards will retain a flexibility advantage by having a spellbook which lets them cast spells they haven't prepared, either at some kind of X/rest cost, or more slowly. They may also be able to re-arrange their spells prepared with the spellbook. The spellbook won't disappear entirely - it's too iconically a D&D thing and a fictional Wizard thing.
It'll be interesting to see, and thanks for engaging with the speculation!

Rangers are limited in schools (no evocation).
 

🤷‍♀️ seems like the most accessible way to preserve the warlock’s identity to me.
I mean, it definitely isn't. Creating a Warlock spell list would achieve everything you're proposing and be vastly more accessible, and actually allow some choice/flexibility where your proposed approach allows basically none.

If they're not doing that, I'm pretty sure can bet on them just getting the Arcane list + Patron stuff, which wouldn't "damage their identity" in any meaningful way.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I mean, it definitely isn't. Creating a Warlock spell list would achieve everything you're proposing and be vastly more accessible, and actually allow some choice/flexibility where your proposed approach allows basically none.
What I’m proposing basically is a Warlock spell list, or rather, one of them for each patron. And since they would always be prepared it would actually be a lot more flexible than the current warlock’s tiny handful of known spells. At any rate, I’m confident they won’t do a single unified warlock spell list unless this whole power source and spell school list experiment goes over very poorly.
If they're not doing that, I'm pretty sure can bet on them just getting the Arcane list + Patron stuff, which wouldn't "damage their identity" in any meaningful way.
I disagree. Like I said, the current warlock list is very thematic, and I don’t see any way to reproduce that with the power source and spell school approach. There’s no combination that doesn’t give them unfitting spells, remove fitting spells, or both. Plus, only being able to prepare two spells per day would be awful.
 

For Warlock and Sorcerers limiting school can be done on the subclass level.
The fiend and the Fey patron don’t need The same school.
Same for sorcerer, Dragon sorcerer and aberrant mind sorcerer may use different school.
But that is not as obvious as the Ranger or the bard.
Another solution would be to handpick spell list for all subclasse. Hard work.

Paladin will use full divine Spell list.

some mention to avoid symmetrical effects. I agree.
 

Mephista

Explorer
Also making Warlocks wait until L3 for a patron would make all existing patrons incompatible with the 1D&D Warlock.
No more than the bard now having four subclass levels instead three. Actually, far less - its super easy to just say "level 1 feature is now level 3. level 6 stays the same." Etc.

On the earlier more ritual spells thing... I notice at least one new ritual spell (silence) but it's only on the divine & primal lists. The arcane list ritual spells look the same based on a quick skim. All three lists have a good number of spells with a school shift though.

A pawn with their free sample.
  • Chain pact: Maybe just a regular familiar till level 3 or more. Frankly having an intelligent at will invis familiar that can change shape is kinda bonkers given how much of a nonissue it isa to have a familiar get killed in 5e.
  • Blade pact: You are proficient with martial weapons & can choose a first level fighting style from the warrior group. some of the rest comes in at 3rd
  • Tome pact: Too many unknowns.
  • Archfey: You can consider faerie fire & sleep prepared The rest comes at 3rd (or maybe vice versa)
  • fiend & Goo, similar to archfey

Edit: This is assuming eldritch blast is going to become a warlock class feature based on warlock level as everyone suspects based on the lack of it being in cantrips
EB is probably a class feature, sure.
Here's the thing with the pact forms. At least this is my guess based on Xanathar and Tasha invocations. Sword/book/chain/talisman are all things you make a pact with as well. Like, the Hexblade pact was made with a sapient weapon - now, all blade pacts are similar. Talismans are designed to work with Genie pact and give you, well, basically genie lamps, but could also be any other kind of Sealed Evil in a Can that you contact the spirit within. Book invocations in tasha had a whole "sign your name in my book of contracts" vibe going for it. And, naturally, chain is all about getting your spells through a familiar.

I'd like to see things keep going that way for the warlock pact types. It really helps give a bit more flavor to the style of pact you make. Very flavorful.
 

Mephista

Explorer
I disagree. Like I said, the current warlock list is very thematic, and I don’t see any way to reproduce that with the power source and spell school approach. There’s no combination that doesn’t give them unfitting spells, remove fitting spells, or both. Plus, only being able to prepare two spells per day would be awful.
Well, they just did it exactly that with Bard, so we'll have to see. Honestly, they could do a forth list that combines bard and warlock and work that way. They combined bard/warlock for Tasha hirelings after all. The two are quite compatible.
 

OB1

Jedi Master
Perhaps what will set the Wizard apart is the ability to study their spellbook mid-day to change spells. Thus, what they give up in total versatility they gain in mid-day versatility. They should also probably get 2 specialty school and 2 non specialty school spells in their book per level (plus scribing from other books/scrolls).
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Well, they just did it exactly that with Bard, so we'll have to see.
Personally I don’t think the bard’s spell list was all that thematically strong to begin with, but I also don’t know how different the version in this UA is, as I haven’t actually gone through to figure out what spells are available under the playtest rule. If it is significantly thematically weaker than the 2014 bard spell list, that would certainly be disappointing.
Honestly, they could do a forth list that combines bard and warlock and work that way. They combined bard/warlock for Tasha hirelings after all. The two are quite compatible.
Reminds me of PF2’s occult spell list. I don’t hate the idea, TBH.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Perhaps what will set the Wizard apart is the ability to study their spellbook mid-day to change spells. Thus, what they give up in total versatility they gain in mid-day versatility. They should also probably get 2 specialty school and 2 non specialty school spells in their book per level (plus scribing from other books/scrolls).
That would make a lot of sense too.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
No more than the bard now having four subclass levels instead three. Actually, far less - its super easy to just say "level 1 feature is now level 3. level 6 stays the same." Etc.


EB is probably a class feature, sure.
Here's the thing with the pact forms. At least this is my guess based on Xanathar and Tasha invocations. Sword/book/chain/talisman are all things you make a pact with as well. Like, the Hexblade pact was made with a sapient weapon - now, all blade pacts are similar. Talismans are designed to work with Genie pact and give you, well, basically genie lamps, but could also be any other kind of Sealed Evil in a Can that you contact the spirit within. Book invocations in tasha had a whole "sign your name in my book of contracts" vibe going for it. And, naturally, chain is all about getting your spells through a familiar.

I'd like to see things keep going that way for the warlock pact types. It really helps give a bit more flavor to the style of pact you make. Very flavorful.
What does that have to do with shifting the patron or bulk of patron benefits back to level three to match other classes? Warlock as class needs to stand more as a class than a multiclass dip slingshot
 


Mephista

Explorer
Personally I don’t think the bard’s spell list was all that thematically strong to begin with, but I also don’t know how different the version in this UA is, as I haven’t actually gone through to figure out what spells are available under the playtest rule. If it is significantly thematically weaker than the 2014 bard spell list, that would certainly be disappointing.
Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.
What does that have to do with shifting the patron or bulk of patron benefits back to level three to match other classes? Warlock as class needs to stand more as a class than a multiclass dip slingshot
Making EB into a class feature will solve the MC issue. No one will dip 2 warlock if it doesn't scale with character level.

The rest is just me babbling about how lit I think pact types can be.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.

Making EB into a class feature will solve the MC issue. No one will dip 2 warlock if it doesn't scale with character level.

The rest is just me babbling about how lit I think pact types can be.
Some features don't need to scale to be kinda borked at a mere 1 level investment. chain pact's imp familiar & hexblade's attack with cha on a pally for example. The 5e warlock in general is far too frontloaded with class features, even invocations like devils sight at 2 are just unchecked munchkinised charop allowing players an easy way to veto any changes to darkvision that try to make light & dark matter. If a level N character can dip 1 level for a nice feature then a second for s kinda broken one (or vice versa) there hasn't been much that was fixed aside from changing it from EB to something else
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.
Oof… Yeah, that sucks…
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Notably, 1dnd bard lacks any form of group buffing or debuffs. Which makes doing the iconic inspiring bard kinda impossibe.

You would think at minimum they'd have a spell like Heroism or Bane or something. Nah.

Making EB into a class feature will solve the MC issue. No one will dip 2 warlock if it doesn't scale with character level.

The rest is just me babbling about how lit I think pact types can be.
To be fair, that sounds like a good job for a Subclass...or a Feat, even.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
That's how I assumed Wizards worked in my first campaign and ran them for a year or two that way. I can say from experience, if this is what they're going to do, it's a huge buff. Not necessarily a good one, either.
Well, “making it work the way people assume it does” seems to be the name of the game for 1D&D, so this seems to me like a vote of confidence that it will work this way, at least for a packet to test it out.
 

Mephista

Explorer
To be fair, that sounds like a good job for a Subclass...or a Feat, even.
Feat, absolutely not. I should not have to have a lineage nor feat to fulfill the most basic tropes of a class. I shouldn't be punished for wanting to play a dwarven bard with crafting feat instead of a drow bard with Magic Initiate.

Subclass I will admit should work, and I have suggested such elsewhere... But the play test didn't have any. Ergo... Something is not right, and needs to be reported as such on the survey.
 



An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top