Unearthed Arcana - 6/5 - Subclasses

[jaappleton]

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/June5UA_RevisedClassOptv1.pdf

Revised Circle of the Shepard for Druids

Revised Cavalier for Fighters

Revised Oath of Conquest for Paladins

Celestial Patron for Warlocks (seems to be new Undying Light)

Revised Invocations for Warlocks

[sightlessrealit]

Seems like Hexblade will be a thing. Not sure about Raven Queen though. :(

[Ralanr]

As I said on Reddit, I don't like cavalier. In addition to just not liking a mount focused archetype that can really limit your options in game (indoor horses man), it also basically requires you to take the trip attack maneuver to access a later feature.

I do like the new warding maneuver, but it doesn't help make this subclass that interesting. It's basically a battlemaster that needs a mount to be at their best.

[Belltent]

Meeeeeeeeeh.

First 3 don't really do anything for me.

Celestial looks to be a rework of undying light. I liked UL as it was, but this is fine too.

Invocations are fine. I assume the mention of hex and hound means Hexblade made the cut. Did the smite invocation damage go down?

[sightlessrealit]

Meeeeeeeeeh.

First 3 don't really do anything for me.

Celestial looks to be a rework of undying light. I liked UL as it was, but this is fine too.

Invocations are fine. I assume the mention of hex and hound means Hexblade made the cut. Did the smite invocation damage go down?
It did 2d8 to 1d8, it's now a general Invocation as well rather than having 1 for each Patron & you can only use Warlock Spell Slots.

[Lombra]

I love the eldritch invocations, oath of conquest feels right, I don't really have an opinion on the druid subclass, Celestial warlock is a new excuse to multiclass paladin with it, and I fail to understand the purpose of the Cavalier. It's basically worse than a battle master with mounted combatant. Literally saddles give the same banefit as one of his features (advantage on keeping mounted).

[jaappleton]

The Invocations seem to have mostly eliminated specific Patrons as prerequisites.

[Mortis_Elrod]

As I said on Reddit, I don't like cavalier. In addition to just not liking a mount focused archetype that can really limit your options in game (indoor horses man), it also basically requires you to take the trip attack maneuver to access a later feature.

I do like the new warding maneuver, but it doesn't help make this subclass that interesting. It's basically a battlemaster that needs a mount to be at their best.

Well you dont have to take trip attack. You get all of the maneuvers. Also why would you play a cavalier if you dont want to be a mounted character?

Looking at the rest of UA, i quite like it. Shepherd is a solid shaman type with focus on summoning (i didnt pay too much attention to the first one so i don't know if its better but it seems really flavorful and not weak), Conquest paladin looks better, very fear focused and looks to be a tank. Charge in Fear everything and trap it, it can only hit you and its taking loads of psychic damage each turn (some for attacking, and some for being scared in the aura), and the capstone allows that to work better, with the resistance, 3rd extra attack, and better crits. Spell list is nice too. Celestial warlock and the new invocations are great, and solves alot of problems with Hexblade, and Celestial is a nice pick for the warlock who didnt want to cleric, and Undying Light was banned (apparently alot of tables don't like it).

I like these revisions.

[jaappleton]

Celestial Patron notes:

I like Healing Light as a Bonus Action

I dislike Radiant Soul's bonus damage being limited to one target. So if I cast Burning Hands, only one target takes the bonus damage.


EDIT: Gift of the Ever Living Ones with Celestial is a great way to keep yourself alive. Your d6 healing dice is always treated as maximum.

[DracoKnight]

I dislike Radiant Soul's bonus damage being limited to one target. So if I cast Burning Hands, only one target takes the bonus damage.

I will be complaining about this in the survey.

[Ralanr]

Well you dont have to take trip attack. You get all of the maneuvers. Also why would you play a cavalier if you dont want to be a mounted character?

I did kinda misread the maneuvers. Which honestly makes it feel more limited imo.

Why invest in a very niche subclass option when you can just get the mount feat next level though? It just doesn't feel that unique in playstyle to me, it's a fighter that shares half of its class features with battlemaster (and not well imo because you'll only get 4 maneuvers unless you take a feat for an extra one) and requires a mount for the rest.

While there's nothing wrong with playing a mounted character, it really can hinder you in certain situations. Namely enclosed spaces like dungeons. I know people want to play such a concept and all the power to them, but why pick a cavalier when you can go battlemaster with the mount feat?

[Maxilian]

Hate some of the new invocation changes, Grasp of Hadar was never the best choice for warlocks, now its useless (Should leave it with the same restriction as repelling blast), also i still think that Frost lance should be able to affect more than one enemy (yes you can reduce max 10 feet of speed to a creature hit, but if you hit multiple creature they all get -10 speed) *Making this an actual interesting choice for a controller warlock*, Cloak of Flies, i do agree with the lvl 5 restriction, but hate the change of once per short rest (the damage is extremely low and poison damage -the less reliable type of damage- and the ability to get adv on Int, its not that good -If that's trully a problem, then just give the limitation to be equal to the CHA MOD-)

[DivisibleByZero]

The Invocations seem to have mostly eliminated specific Patrons as prerequisites.

And the specific weapon requirements as well. Previously, there was no way to get a Warlock melee smite with either Dex or Cha. It was Str only unless you were using a Fey Bow. Now any Warlock can use Dex, and Pact of the Blade Hexblades can even use Cha.

[Lombra]

I will be complaining about this in the survey.

I think it's fine, many similar abilities work the same way (evoker's INT to damage and dragon sorcerer's CHA to damage), it's eldritch blast that is an exception.

[Specter]

What I disliked about it:

- Warlock should stop getting more of these damage-related invocations. Their at-will damage is already off the charts, and these seem like an attempt to push it even further into breakness.
- This is just an impression, but could it be that a Battlemaster with Mounted Combatant is actually a better cavalier than a Cavalier?
- Conquest's Scornful Rebuke is too powerful. You might actually aim for a low AC if you're going for this archetype.

[Maxilian]

Celestial Patron notes:

I like Healing Light as a Bonus Action

I dislike Radiant Soul's bonus damage being limited to one target. So if I cast Burning Hands, only one target takes the bonus damage.


EDIT: Gift of the Ever Living Ones with Celestial is a great way to keep yourself alive. Your d6 healing dice is always treated as maximum.

Yeah i was thinking the same, i do agree with the Raidant Soul thing, but i also think (ignoring that part) this is the best interaction of that subclass that Wizard have made

[jaappleton]

I think it's fine, many similar abilities work the same way (evoker's INT to damage and dragon sorcerer's CHA to damage), it's eldritch blast that is an exception.

I think you're misunderstanding. Dragon Sorc's applies to every target hit by the spell. Celestial applies only to one target you hit. Even if I hit 4 targets with Burning Hands, I pick one to take the extra damage. A Dragon Sorc doing the same thing has his bonus damage apply to all targets hit.

[jaappleton]

The lv2 Hawk feature from Circle of the Shepard got nerfed. Hard. It was amazing, now its alright. Unicorn allows Druids to contend with Life Clerics.

[DracoKnight]

I think you're misunderstanding. Dragon Sorc's applies to every target hit by the spell. Celestial applies only to one target you hit. Even if I hit 4 targets with Burning Hands, I pick one to take the extra damage. A Dragon Sorc doing the same thing has his bonus damage apply to all targets hit.

Exactly. Dragon Sorcs apply theirs to one damage roll, no matter how many people are affected by that roll.

[Maxilian]

What I disliked about it:

- Warlock should stop getting more of these damage-related invocations. Their at-will damage is already off the charts, and these seem like an attempt to push it even further into breakness.
- This is just an impression, but could it be that a Battlemaster with Mounted Combatant is actually a better cavalier than a Cavalier?
- Conquest's Scornful Rebuke is too powerful. You might actually aim for a low AC if you're going for this archetype.

1- I'm ok with the damage related invocations, the smite one is to evade the common MC for the sake of smite, and the others are not that good to be a problem (maybe the fireball one, but not even that much).

2- The only thing that does not push it to be completely better is Warding Maneauver (as it does give your mount more chance to survive or you -its really good even if you never use it on your mount because you got the MC feat)

3- I don't agree, even more when you have in mind at what lvl you get it (lvl 15, 5 radiant damage won't be much of a problem -having in mind that i will most likely do that damage x 4 or x6)

[Lombra]

Grasp of hadar feels good on a tank bladelock. The general smites are a relief, FINALLY an invocation to use your pact weapon as a focus, and now the hex invocations make sense (because they work with hex too) and give something to do with the bonus action of the EB spammers. Tank-locks are stickyer than ever, I love it.

[Maxilian]

The lv2 Hawk feature from Circle of the Shepard got nerfed. Hard. It was amazing, now its alright. Unicorn allows Druids to contend with Life Clerics.

I think is worse than allright, right now its an aura that works on only 1 person (why make it an aura then?)

[jaappleton]

Eldritch Smite is considerably weaker than Curse Bringer (from Hexblade).

Curse Bringer is 2d8 per spell level and isn't limited to once per turn.

Tomb of Levistus is considerably weaker, as now it lasts until whenever the ice melts.

Kiss of Mephistopheles is now selectable by non-Fiends. Making it a very interesting pickup for, say, Archfey who typically lack a big AoE.

I actually really like Maddening Hex. Solid use of bonus action there.

[Maxilian]

Grasp of hadar feels good on a tank bladelock. The general smites are a relief, FINALLY an invocation to use your pact weapon as a focus, and now the hex invocations make sense (because they work with hex too) and give something to do with the bonus action of the EB spammers. Tank-locks are stickyer than ever, I love it.

Grasp of Hadar (As it is now, is rarely useful) as you can only pull them 10 (not 10 per each hit like the repelling blast) -that makes me sad-

[DivisibleByZero]

Eldritch Smite is considerably weaker than Curse Bringer (from Hexblade).

Curse Bringer is 2d8 per spell level and isn't limited to once per turn.

It (and the others of its ilk) required a specific pact, a specific patron, a specific weapon, and a specific attack stat.
This requires a specific Pact only.

[Lombra]

I think you're misunderstanding. Dragon Sorc's applies to every target hit by the spell. Celestial applies only to one target you hit. Even if I hit 4 targets with Burning Hands, I pick one to take the extra damage. A Dragon Sorc doing the same thing has his bonus damage apply to all targets hit.

I misunderstood the wizard and sorcerer's abilities up until now. Wow. Thanks for the clarification.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm finding a lot to like here except the Oath of Conquest. Not because it's poorly designed, but because as a player choice it's terrible.

I mean, this stuff will end up AL legal. Can you imagine someone playing with those tenets? It's basically unplayable in AL, and an awful idea in most other campaigns. It'll see limited use at best.

Limited use that was already covered by the Oathbreaker Paladin.

Why are we getting one (and sadly, likely two) options that are practically unplayable for players as player options?

[Beechgnome]

This UA brought to you by Unicorns! Ride them like a Cavalier! Summon their spirit like a Shepherd! Worship like a Warlock! Enslave them like a Paladin! Wait, what?

[jaappleton]

It (and the others of its ilk) required a specific pact, a specific patron, a specific weapon, and a specific attack stat.
This requires a specific Pact only.

Hence 'weaker', not necessarily 'worse'. Though this new invocation does require 5th level. I don't recall if the others did. I don't think they did.

[DivisibleByZero]

Hence 'weaker', not necessarily 'worse'. Though this new invocation does require 5th level. I don't recall if the others did. I don't think they did.

They required level 3 based solely on the fact that you had to be Pact of the Blade.

[Arkhios]

Seems like Hexblade will be a thing. Not sure about Raven Queen though. :(

I wouldn't make hasty assumptions about any of the previously presented sub-classes. Even though Raven Queen wasn't included in this revision, it might still come in a later revision, or it might have been considered good enough as it was in the first place. I would consider these revisions as a way to refine some of the most liked concepts which just happened to have more problems to deal with.

That said, I kinda agree about Cavalier. While it's thematic, it's too similar with Battle Master and largely surpassed by a Battle Master with the Mounted Combatant feat. Then again, in a game that doesn't use feats, a cavalier would have a slight advantage over Battle Master. But still, feats are commonly allowed so it should get a slight boost in direction or another. Maybe a Cavalier could get a free mount for starters.

I really like Circle of the Shepherd. It's a flavorful and arguably pretty powerful summoner, and works quite perfectly as a shaman.

Oath of Conquest is actually quite interesting really. It isn't strictly spoken an evil oath by default, but it allows such an approach. I could see these in the ranks of barbaric hordes.

I agree, Radiant Soul's damage being singled out to one target is contradictory to multiple sources, especially when compared to Draconic Sorcerer's Elemental Affinity, which is officially(?) ruled as it would apply to all targets of a spell, not just one.

Eldritch Smite may have been reduced in damage, but on the other hand, it'll never go beyond 5d8, and is somewhat equal with Divine Smite in that respect.

Improved Pact Weapon is honestly really cool. It felt a bit power-creepish to have a replacement invocation that made it better every time you chose it. Considering that you actually can bond your magical weapon as a pact weapon, the increased bonus to attack and damage rolls would be redundant. A +1 from the invocation is quite fine.

[DivisibleByZero]

Eldritch Smite may have been reduced in damage, but on the other hand, it'll never go beyond 5d8, and is somewhat equal with Divine Smite in that respect.

It'll never go beyond 6d8 unless multiclassing UA material is allowed. In which case, the official ruling stating that spell slots are interchangable means that a Lock5/whatever15 will potentially have 8th level slots to use, making for 9d8 smites.

[Sigreid]

As I said on Reddit, I don't like cavalier. In addition to just not liking a mount focused archetype that can really limit your options in game (indoor horses man), it also basically requires you to take the trip attack maneuver to access a later feature.

I do like the new warding maneuver, but it doesn't help make this subclass that interesting. It's basically a battlemaster that needs a mount to be at their best.

Cave lier could be good for a halfling on a dog.

[Tetrasodium]

The more that I look at the circle of the Shepherd, the more that it's starting to grow on me as a powerful summoner who gets more powerful as they level in exchange for not choosing the survivability of moon druids or casting options of a land druid.

@2 they get some nice aura options that can be projected to allies within 30 feet of a point within 60 feet 1/short rest those three aura's are:

Bear: 5+druid level temp hp.the value might seem iffy when you consider the poor scaling, but the size of the aura means the druid can cover both front line party members as well as all of their conjured critters & those spells have the ability to conjure 1 good critter 8 weak ones, or inbetween variants. This is compounded by the fact that it can turn a swarm of 1-2 shot critters into a 2-3 shot swarm in a lot of cases.
Hawk: use your reaction to grant advantage to one if the aura recipientsfor the next 10 rounds.
Everyone getting the aura gets advantage on ability checks & if you cast a spell that recovers hit points, eech creature of your choice in the aura gains HP equal to your druid level




Each creature you summon has +2hp/hit die it has
Attacks from those creatures are considered magic



Your conjured army recovers regains HP equal to half your druid level at the end of each turn it ends in the aura you setup





if you get reduced to 0 hp, you get the benefit of a 9th level conjure spell for the next hour with a few restrictions



[list=""level3"]


[l/ist]


all in all it opens some interesting options for an army of critters style druid. Unfortunately, that can be the sort of thing to drive GM's insane

[DracoKnight]

It'll never go beyond 6d8 unless multiclassing UA material is allowed. In which case, the official ruling stating that spell slots are interchangable means that a Lock5/whatever15 will potentially have 8th level slots to use, making for 9d8 smites.

It specifically calls out warlock spell slots. Which, I would (as a DM) say are unique from all other spell slots, because Warlocks have Pact Magic, not Spellcasting.

[Arkhios]

It'll never go beyond 6d8 unless multiclassing UA material is allowed. In which case, the official ruling stating that spell slots are interchangable means that a Lock5/whatever15 will potentially have 8th level slots to use, making for 9d8 smites.
I read it that you could only use warlock spell slots for Eldritch Smite. So, no 9d8 smites, despite your classes. Although, it seems you're right. 6d8 it is. Still, not any better than Divine Smite is.

Edit: Ninja season is up again, it seems.

[Lombra]

Grasp of Hadar (As it is now, is rarely useful) as you can only pull them 10 (not 10 per each hit like the repelling blast) -that makes me sad-

Well it helps you to close gaps with the enemies, I don't feel like it's wrong but I think that it wouldn't be wrong to make it unlimited either.

[solidork]

Cavalier is boring as all get out, but still potentially useful in the sense that its a Battlemaster that trades a maneuver (probably Riposte, which is a non-trivial sacrifice) for a skill proficiency and unique defensive maneuver. All of the mount stuff is basically a ribbon, which is weird considering the flavor of the class, but whatever.

[DivisibleByZero]

It specifically calls out warlock spell slots. Which, I would (as a DM) say are unique from all other spell slots, because Warlocks have Pact Magic, not Spellcasting.

By strict RAW, Paladins can only smite with a Paladin slot.
Except for the fact that this has been officially ruled to be incorrect, and spell slots are interchangeable. You can use Divine Smite with a Warlock slot, so the reverse would also be true.
Strict RAW, Pact Magic slots only. Official Ruling and RAI, any slot is a slot for use.


It specifically calls out warlock spell slots. Which, I would (as a DM) say are unique from all other spell slots, because Warlocks have Pact Magic, not Spellcasting.

Then you also have to use only Paladin slots to smite with, meaning multiclass Sorcadins/PallyLocks/Bardladins would suck. It's both, or neither.

[Matrix_Walker]

I liked the Shepard, Was bored by the cavalier, impressed with the conqueror, and a bit disappointed with the damage bonus change in the Celestial...

But the Invocations were great! I'm all for divorcing the fluff from the mechanic a bit and letting everyone have the goodies. A general Smite makes pact of the blade finally worth it IMO.

[Ralanr]

Cave lier could be good for a halfling on a dog.

Just like beast master halfling rangers.

[jaappleton]

By strict RAW, Paladins can only smite with a Paladin slot.
Except for the fact that this has been officially ruled to be incorrect, and spell slots are interchangeable. You can use Divine Smite with a Warlock slot, so the reverse would also be true.
RAW, Pact Magic slots only. Official Ruling and RAI, any slot is a slot for use.

I have to both agree and disagree.

Paladin Smite says it has to use a spell slot. Which Warlocks get, but isn't part of the Spellcasting feature, since they get special Pact Magic.

Also, you're welcome. I'm the one who got them to clarify it was incorrect so long ago. :smalltongue:

I mean, I don't see any DM being particularly stingy about it.

[Pex]

Finally! A Cavalier who doesn't lose his class features if he can't have his Mount with him for some reason.

[DivisibleByZero]

I have to both agree and disagree.

Paladin Smite says it has to use a spell slot. Which Warlocks get, but isn't part of the Spellcasting feature, since they get special Pact Magic.

Also, you're welcome. I'm the one who got them to clarify it was incorrect so long ago. :smalltongue:

I mean, I don't see any DM being particularly stingy about it.


D i v i n e S m i t e
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a
m elee w eapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell
slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to
the w eapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a
1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher
than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage i

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/20/may-i-spend-warlock-spell-slots-to-use-paladins-divine-smite/

Davi Lemos @setitadavi
May I spend warlock (pact magic) spell slots to use Paladin's divine smite?

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@setitadavi Yes.

If you disallow one, you have to disallow the other. The designers allow one, so they'll allow both.
Slots are slots are slots.

[Lombra]

So... is it possible to burn both a divine smite and an eldritch smite in one single attack? Yes it costs two spell slots but it's 12d8 at character level 11, feels spikey but the huge cost makes it probably balanced. Just imagine critting on a dragon and suddenly it disappears under 24d8 rolls :biggrin:

[jaappleton]

So... is it possible to burn both a divine smite and an eldritch smite in one single attack? Yes it costs two spell slots but it's 12d8 at character level 11, feels spikey but the huge cost makes it probably balanced. Just imagine critting on a dragon and suddenly it disappears under 24d8 rolls :biggrin:

Or anything which forces a Crit. Hitting a target impacted by Hold Monster, or a humanoid affected by Hold Person...

[jaappleton]

D i v i n e S m i t e
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a
m elee w eapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell
slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to
the w eapon’s damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a
1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher
than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage i

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/20/may-i-spend-warlock-spell-slots-to-use-paladins-divine-smite/

Davi Lemos @setitadavi
May I spend warlock (pact magic) spell slots to use Paladin's divine smite?

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@setitadavi Yes.

If you disallow one, you have to disallow the other. The designers allow one, so they'll allow both.
Slots are slots are slots.

December 8th, 2014
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/542138975247269888

EDIT: We actually agree, y'know. I'm just stating that I can see how some people wouldn't allow it, since Warlock's Pact Magic is its own, special thing.

[DivisibleByZero]

EDIT: We actually agree, y'know. I'm just stating that I can see how some people wouldn't allow it, since Warlock's Pact Magic is its own, special thing.

Which is exactly what I said. Strict RAW by someone who ignores the clearly stated intent, they can't. And neither can Sorcadins/PallyLocks/Bardladins in that case.
Going by RAI and clearly stated Official Rulings, they can.

[Arkhios]

In all honesty, I hope they restrict it so that the damage per slot is equal to Divine Smite. Not worse, not better. Equal.

Also, I hope they address multiclassing between classes that may have a Smite-like ability, something along the lines that you can expend only one spell slot per hit to smite.

[deathadder99]

And the specific weapon requirements as well. Previously, there was no way to get a Warlock melee smite with either Dex or Cha. It was Str only unless you were using a Fey Bow. Now any Warlock can use Dex, and Pact of the Blade Hexblades can even use Cha.


I'm quite disappointed they got rid of the moon bow - it was really quite flavorful. Now there's no way to have an archer Blade Pact warlock. The only way is to somehow convince your DM to give you a magic bow. The new smite is really quite nerfed as well - warlock only slots, and 1d8. I didn't even think the 2d8 was that broken because of how much you had to give up to get the damage.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm quite disappointed they got rid of the moon bow - it was really quite flavorful. Now there's no way to have an archer Blade Pact warlock. The only way is to somehow convince your DM to give you a magic bow. The new smite is really quite nerfed as well - warlock only slots, and 1d8. I didn't even think the 2d8 was that broken because of how much you had to give up to get the damage.

One more time for those of you not paying attention:
It's not warlock slots only. Slots are slots are slots, as has been proven by the designers.

And finding a magic bow isn't exactly all that tough to do as long as your DM knows you're looking for one.
And the lowered damage comes with a fraction of the requirements.

It's a little weaker in this format, but it's much better this way.

[Sir cryosin]

Ok I'm happy i just stared playing a Druid circle of Shepherd. The old one was cool but this new one is so much cooler and better I can get more out of my totem. Thank you wotc.

[rbstr]

Errata says the Paladin can use any spell slot to smite. You're using an old version. It's not simply a ruling it's corrected in new printing https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata.pdf

I really like the Celestial in concept and execution for the most part.
Except Radiant Soul is not so good.
The Cha+ damage to one target of radiant/fire (which must come from a spell) is not really all that exciting in a vacuum and then it anti-synergizes with both of the basic at-will Warlock Things To Do: Eldrich Blast and Blade Pact.
Like you really need a better reason to drop EB, and all it's fun stuff, for Sacred Flame than Cha on damage. It either needs to be more situationaly powerful or retooled it so it works with Blade/EB somehow.

I'm also pretty sad the healing-die maximize went to Chain pact only.

[Sir cryosin]

Ohh wow those Invocations are cool.

[Corran]

Developer 1: Dude, this new oath is super strong, we did a great job.
Developer 2: Yeah, and it says so right in their fluff text, that they are supposed to be badasses, so it's ok. But I think that we are still missing something?
Developer 1: Ooooh, I know!!!! See their oath spells?
Developer 2: Yes...?
Developer 1: Well, we get rid of wrathful smite, and we throw in armor of agathys!
Developer 2: Hmmm, I dont know, wrathful smite kind of fits with the theme, but armor of agathys.... is there a cold theme somehere in that oath?
Developer 1: Well, the way I see it, you still get access to wrathful smite from your spell list, so throwing in armor of agathys cold theme or not, would be a major improvement, since everyone loves armor of agathys on a melee character.
Developer 2: You are right! And paladins only get up to 5th level spell slots, so no problem there. What was the theme again of that oath?
Developer 1: Mmmm, never mind that, I got another great idea, we also drop phantasmal force and include spiritual weapon....

----------------------------------------------

Developer 1: Hey, Ive got another great idea.
Developer 2: Oh...? What is it?
Developer 1: Do you know how players love to combine paladin and warlock to use those short rest spell slots to smite with?
Developer 2: Well, yeah, my devotion paladin/ fiend warlock just hit level 10 andhe's aewsome!
Developer 1: Ok, so, how about, we create a warlock invocation that will allow warlocks to smite without needing paladin levels?
Developer 2: That would be amazing! Wait... does it fit the warlock theme? And besides, isn't that kind of the paladin's thing? Were you perhaps thinking to have this invocation for warlocks of that new patron with the angelic theme?
Developer 1: Well, no. It's for every warlock, regardless of the patron. Just as long as they take the blade pact.
Developer 3: I overheard you guys, and at the very least I would suggest to restrict it once per turn, otherwise you are stepping way too much on the paladin's comat role's toes.
Developer 2: Yeah, alright...
Developer 1: Yeah, I guess...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, what apperas to be going on, is that the guys who designed these subclasses, were borrowing stuff randomly and throwing them around to see where they will stick.

At least in the paladin's case (because that's what I just looked at), it seems like a cheap and poorly attempt at something that looks suspiciously too oathbreaker-y, with additions that seem to have been carried out by an optimizaer than by an actual developer/designer/ the person who is paid to do this stuff anyway.

I honestly hope it's a joke...

[DivisibleByZero]

Errata says the Paladin can use any spell slot to smite. You're using an old version.

And UA doesn't officially exist. You're using a non-existent version.
A non-existent version from a playtest article, which is historically riddled with typos and editing errors.
And it's a non-existent version from a playtest article, which is historically riddled with typos and editing errors, that was written without multiclassing in mind, and assuming a single class character for the ability descriptions, just like every other class in the game.
It's a non-existent version from a playtest article, which is historically riddled with typos and editing errors, that was written without multiclassing in mind, and assuming a single class character for the ability descriptions, just like every other class in the game, that has a direct correlation to an ability from another class, and that ability can use a slot from anywhere, so this one can as well.
Trust me. It's not Pact Magic slots only.
Slots are slots are slots.

[Sir cryosin]

Errata says the Paladin can use any spell slot to smite. You're using an old version.

I really like the Celestial in concept and execution for the most part.
Except Radiant Soul is not so good.
The Cha+ damage to one target of radiant/fire (which must come from a spell) is not really all that exciting in a vacuum and then it anti-synergizes with both of the basic at-will Warlock Things To Do: Eldrich Blast and Blade Pact.
Like you really need a better reason to drop EB, and all it's fun stuff, for Sacred Flame than Cha on damage. It either needs to be more situationaly powerful or retooled it so it works with Blade/EB somehow.

I'm also pretty sad the healing-die maximize went to Chain pact only.

That can help blade pacts that are using GFB

[Mortis_Elrod]

That can help blade pacts that are using GFB

Short rest Flamestrikes. For when you absolutely positively have to kill ONE guy.

[rbstr]

And UA doesn't officially exist. You're using a non-existent version.
A non-existent version from a playtest article, which is historically riddled with typos and editing errors.
And it's a non-existent version from a playtest article, which is historically riddled with typos and editing errors, that was written without multiclassing in mind, and assuming a single class character for the ability descriptions, just like every other class in the game.
It's a non-existent version from a playtest article, which is historically riddled with typos and editing errors, that was written without multiclassing in mind, and assuming a single class character for the ability descriptions, just like every other class in the game, that has a direct correlation to an ability from another class, and that ability can use a slot from anywhere, so this one can as well.
Trust me. It's not Pact Magic slots only.
Slots are slots are slots.


I don't know what you're arguing with me here for. I'm simply saying that the current printed PHB says paladins can smite with any spell slot. There's no difference in RAW/RAI/Strict/Loose or whatever there now, it's in the actual book.
Maybe they intend that for the warlock smite, maybe they don't. I don't know or really even care.

[rooneg]

I miss the moon bow. It was never anywhere close to as mechanically good as just using Eldritch Blast, but the answer to that was "you need to make it better", not "you should just cut it".

[Mortis_Elrod]

I miss the moon bow. It was never anywhere close to as mechanically good as just using Eldritch Blast, but the answer to that was "you need to make it better", not "you should just cut it".

Moonbow was nice i agree. I think the problem shouldn't be resolved with an invocation though, but rewording pact of the blade to include ranged weapons without needing a magic one to bind to.

[rbstr]

I miss the moon bow. It was never anywhere close to as mechanically good as just using Eldritch Blast, but the answer to that was "you need to make it better", not "you should just cut it".

I agree. Having some specific weapons was cool. Just needed to work with the concept a bit more.

[PeteNutButter]

Cavalier... makes a really poor mounted character. I get that they didn't want the character to be worthless when off his mount, but they went way too far. He needs to get abilities that are actually better when he is on a mount.

-The Ferocious Charger ability doesn't even have anything to do with charging.
-The mount is surely going to die without Mounted Combatant. Which is funny because that is what the class is good at saving from falling off your dying mount.
-The mounting dismounting thing is the ONLY incentive to actually have a mount.
-Base paladin actually does it better with share spells and a spell that can summon a mount in the event your current one dies.

The bottom line is the cavalier is a weak BM with a cool ward ability to replace riposte, which for most people is not an upgrade. If it weren't called cavalier, 90% of people playing this class would never even have a horse. As it stands there is still no real benefit.

It's a very lightly reskinned BM. Basically it's like asking for a Pepsi and they throw a pepsi label on a can of tea and expect you to act like the taste isn't off.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't know what you're arguing with me here for. I'm simply saying that the current printed PHB says paladins can smite with any spell slot.

Then there is no point to your "correcting" me, as I already knew that. All it does is reinforce my point, anyway.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

If these new invocations are meant to replace the ones released previously then I'm really disappointed.
I agree with making the smites restricted to warlock spell slots, makes it less likely for power gamers to 2 lvl dip just for smite. But cutting the smite dmg in half really hurts warlocks who are trying no to be EB spammers. Yes it was more than the Paladins smite, but the Paladin gets a ton more slots to smite with. Also it really cuts out a lot of flavor, i liked who the invocations were part of your patron choices. With invocations and patron/pacts being the main differences between warlocks i don't understand them cutting out some much meaningful flavor.

[Dr.Samurai]

Gaze of Khirad... NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I really liked at-will X-Ray vision :smallannoyed:.

[jaappleton]

Then there is no point to your "correcting" me, as I already knew that. All it does is reinforce my point, anyway.

Hey now. C'mon, DBZ, this post here simply comes across as pompous.

You're better than that.

[DivisibleByZero]

Hey now. C'mon, DBZ, this post here simply comes across as pompous.

You're better than that.

Sorry.
I've been a bit tense on thee forums lately, with personal attacks such that I've half a mind to report for "Baggage" and "Harassment" from certain posters. I guess the defensiveness this has created followed me here today.
My apologies if I came across as pompous.
:smallredface:

[PeteNutButter]

Then there is no point to your "correcting" me, as I already knew that. All it does is reinforce my point, anyway.

I'd actually say it does the opposite. The fact is the errata on paladin made it so no where in the rules did it specify a class spell slot. If we assume they are at a point in this edition where the writers have a good handle on the rules (which might be a big assumption...), then a new specification on warlock slots would have an actual meaning. Since it's pact magic, it is still separate and therefore easily distinguishable.

[jaappleton]

Sorry.
I've been a bit tense on thee forums lately, with personal attacks such that I've half a mind to report for "Baggage" and "Harassment" from certain posters. I guess the defensiveness this has created followed me here today.
My apologies if I came across as pompous.
:smallredface:

No worries, man. It happens to the best of us.

-fist bump-

[mephnick]

I don't care about any of these subclasses except Conquest....and that's only because I don't want players choosing it.

I'm starting to think there isn't actually much design space left in 5e unless they're going to start making entirely new full classes. The subclasses in the PhB all seem very distinct and flavorful, everything since then has been bland, mixed from other subclasses or straight up nonsensical. All they can think of is invocations to pile on to warlocks apparently, as if we need more Warlock characters at tables.

[JumboWheat01]

Well at least we won't get Undying Light and Undying Warlocks mixed up anymore with that name change. :smalltongue:

Unfortunately, none of these were archetypes I hoped would get some tweaking, but it's nice to see them trying to fit each one into a certain mold.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'd actually say it does the opposite. The fact is the errata on paladin made it so no where in the rules did it specify a class spell slot. If we assume they are at a point in this edition where the writers have a good handle on the rules (which might be a big assumption...), then a new specification on warlock slots would have an actual meaning. Since it's pact magic, it is still separate and therefore easily distinguishable.

Rule #1 when reading UA content:
Don't take any of it as RAW, because it has not been polished.

This ability was written in exactly the same fashion that all class abilities were written. It was written with a single class character in mind. Multiclassing is an optional rule.
I 100% guarantee you that if this becomes official, either it will be reworded, or there will be an Official Ruling stating that you can use any slot, because a slot is a slot is a slot. I can say that with zero doubt, mainly because that ruling has already been made.

Multiclassing: Spell slots from Spellcasting and Pact Magic are interchangeable (PH, 164) (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/788651958605185024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2016%2F11 %2F04%2Fcan-a-warlocksorcerer-covert-sorcery-points-to-warlock-spell-slots%2F)
When it says "Warlock spell slot" it means "Spell Slot (any)." Because they're interchangeable, just like I've been saying for pages now.

[Ralanr]

I don't care about any of these subclasses except Conquest....and that's only because I don't want players choosing it.

I'm starting to think there isn't actually much design space left in 5e unless they're going to start making entirely new full classes. The subclasses in the PhB all seem very distinct and flavorful, everything since then has been bland, mixed from other subclasses or straight up nonsensical. All they can think of is invocations to pile on to warlocks apparently, as if we need more Warlock characters at tables.

Barbarian doesn't seem to get very distinct subclasses.

I don't care how many totems you give totem warrior, you're basically playing a Druidic barbarian and any other subclass outside of that flavor aren't that good in comparison.

[Spiritchaser]

With the removal of cursebringer, there is now no free transfer of the hexblade's curse. That may, of course, have been included in the curse its self now.

[jaappleton]

I don't care about any of these subclasses except Conquest....and that's only because I don't want players choosing it.

I'm starting to think there isn't actually much design space left in 5e unless they're going to start making entirely new full classes. The subclasses in the PhB all seem very distinct and flavorful, everything since then has been bland, mixed from other subclasses or straight up nonsensical. All they can think of is invocations to pile on to warlocks apparently, as if we need more Warlock characters at tables.

An Intelligence based Half Caster. That's what I want.

[KorvinStarmast]

An Intelligence based Half Caster. That's what I want. What I'd like is that they Int-base the warlock, but I guess that ain't gonna happen.

Circle of the Shepherd: I like this look.

Cavalier: I like it, though I do understand the criticisms. Mounted combat in this edition is still ... a bit of a snarl.

Celestial Patron: Love it! I can finally play Damiano to a tee! (Books by R.A. MacAvoy (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/643992.Damiano_s_Lute)). We'll just have to see which of the DM's in our shared world will allow it.

New Invocations:
Pact of the Moon. This poses some interesting questions: if you cannot sleep, you cannot dream. I wonder if this implies a slow but sure road to madness? Seems to me perfect for GOO Warlock.

Kiss of Mephistopheles: I like it well enough.
Shroud of Shadow: if I can live to 15th (and the campaign lasts that long) it looks like a "must have" though at higher levels a lot of monsters have insane perception capability.

[Ralanr]

An Intelligence based Half Caster. That's what I want.

Honestly with intelligence being such a rarely needed stat I can't see them doing that as a subclass.

[Maxilian]

The more that I look at the circle of the Shepherd, the more that it's starting to grow on me as a powerful summoner who gets more powerful as they level in exchange for not choosing the survivability of moon druids or casting options of a land druid.

@2 they get some nice aura options that can be projected to allies within 30 feet of a point within 60 feet 1/short rest those three aura's are:

Bear: 5+druid level temp hp.the value might seem iffy when you consider the poor scaling, but the size of the aura means the druid can cover both front line party members as well as all of their conjured critters & those spells have the ability to conjure 1 good critter 8 weak ones, or inbetween variants. This is compounded by the fact that it can turn a swarm of 1-2 shot critters into a 2-3 shot swarm in a lot of cases.
Hawk: use your reaction to grant advantage to one if the aura recipientsfor the next 10 rounds.
Everyone getting the aura gets advantage on ability checks & if you cast a spell that recovers hit points, eech creature of your choice in the aura gains HP equal to your druid level




Each creature you summon has +2hp/hit die it has
Attacks from those creatures are considered magic



Your conjured army recovers regains HP equal to half your druid level at the end of each turn it ends in the aura you setup





if you get reduced to 0 hp, you get the benefit of a 9th level conjure spell for the next hour with a few restrictions



[list=""level3"]


[l/ist]


all in all it opens some interesting options for an army of critters style druid. Unfortunately, that can be the sort of thing to drive GM's insane

Now add a Necromancer to that party, and now you have a mounted army of undeads xD (and the hate of your DM)

[Mikal]

I'm not liking the loss of weapon specific smites. Those seemed more flavorable than this.
I'd like to see both- Your patron specific chosen weapon does the old version, while any Pact of the Blade warlock can use the standard.

That way you can have your Greatsword Cursebringers and CHA-based hexblade regular smites.

If I had twitter I'd ask whether or not they were meant to be combined that way, or if this specifically replaces the weapon specific smites.

Either way, it seems that if this is meant to replace the specific smites, then the warlock default optimization is EB once again.

[Misterwhisper]

Barbarian doesn't seem to get very distinct subclasses.

I don't care how many totems you give totem warrior, you're basically playing a Druidic barbarian and any other subclass outside of that flavor isn't that good in comparison.


Ancestral Guardian barbarian is one of the most powerful subclasses in the game.

[jaappleton]

Honestly with intelligence being such a rarely needed stat I can't see them doing that as a subclass.

They have Charisma (Paladin) and Wisdom (Ranger) half-casters already.

Intelligence is the only one without one.

Though they're also the only ones with 1/3rd casters...

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm not liking the loss of weapon specific smites. Those seemed more flavorable than this.
I'd like to see both- Your patron specific chosen weapon does the old version, while any Pact of the Blade warlock can use the standard.

That way you can have your Greatsword Cursebringers and CHA-based hexblade regular smites.

If I had twitter I'd ask whether or not they were meant to be combined that way, or if this specifically replaces the weapon specific smites.

You don't have to ask.
Read the article. Not just the content, but the whole thing. It's right there in the Introduction.

[Mikal]

You don't have to ask.
Read the article. Not just the content, but the whole thing. It's right there in the Introduction.

That's what I get for going straight to the PDF. Ugh. Looks like the best attack option is back to ye olde EB and tome pact.

[Corran]

That's what I get for going straight to the PDF. Ugh. Looks like the best attack option is back to ye olde EB.
One is for consistent dpr, the other is for nova. Not much point comparing them, as they serve different functions.

[Beechgnome]

They have Charisma (Paladin) and Wisdom (Ranger) half-casters already.

Intelligence is the only one without one.

Though they're also the only ones with 1/3rd casters...

I know some want Artificers to be full casters but to me, they are a good candidate for half caster status. The 1/3 just doesn't cut it, so I've home-brewed it to half for a player who wanted to play one in our next campaign.

[Mikal]

One is for consistent dpr, the other is for nova. Not much point comparing them, as they serve different functions.

Except that one is now mathematically superior to the other.

With the higher smite damage from the previous version, plus the fact you required a specific weapon type depending on patron, it actually made sense to choose between X, Y, or Z and have it be somewhat balanced.

Now, EB mechanically is the better choice, like it was before.

The most you can do with the smite now is 2d6+Str+6d8+Cha and 2d6+Str+Cha once per round, sacrificing spell slots vs. 1d10+cha*4 per round without sacrificing spell slots.

66 Average damage slashing (greatsword, lifedrinker and thirsting blade, no magic weapon 20 Str and 20 Cha) at the cost of a spell slot vs. 44 Average damage force (20 Cha) without a spell slot.
Not much of a damage spike, when compared to the smite spells that Hexblades already get.

Realistically the Smite damage is actually going to be 56, since it's now smarter to go with sword and board or two handed longsword so you can use Cha to hit and damage vs. MADding it up with Str that a greatsword requires.

So... 62 average vs. 44. Not much "spike" there.

Plus you can still quicken EB if you go sorcerer and want to have a nova feel to things.

[solidork]

They have Charisma (Paladin) and Wisdom (Ranger) half-casters already.

Intelligence is the only one without one.

Though they're also the only ones with 1/3rd casters...

I think they meant that it would be it's own class instead of a subclass of an existing one.

I also want an Int half caster, specifically a sneaky one.

[GlenSmash!]

Barbarian doesn't seem to get very distinct subclasses.

I don't care how many totems you give totem warrior, you're basically playing a Druidic barbarian and any other subclass outside of that flavor aren't that good in comparison.

True, which is why I've liked that all the UA Barbarian subclasses are not Totem Warriors.

[DivisibleByZero]

They have Charisma (Paladin) and Wisdom (Ranger) half-casters already.

Intelligence is the only one without one.

Though they're also the only ones with 1/3rd casters...
I think they meant that it would be it's own class instead of a subclass of an existing one.

I also want an Int half caster, specifically a sneaky one.

All that's missing is an arcane half caster.
Yes, I know, there are no divine one-third casters, but that doesn't really matter, as all divine classes are at least half casters already.
But a simple arcane half caster would be a Godsend to build subclasses for. Keep it simple, and let the subclasses do the brunt of the work for differentiating them.

edit:
Incidentally, I think Artificer should have been an half caster, but I do NOT think it was the one that we need to fill this gap. That would be a secondary arcane half caster for me. Artificer for those that want it, and a second arcane half caster to build up with subclasses.

[Belltent]

Honestly with intelligence being such a rarely needed stat I can't see them doing that as a subclass.

I think this is precisely why they need to do it. The game doesn't get much mileage out of INT, so WotC needs to start manufacturing it.

Although I think the obvious answer is to start by making Artificer a half caster.

[Sir cryosin]

I think this is precisely why they need to do it. The game doesn't get much mileage out of INT, so WotC needs to start manufacturing it.

Although I think the obvious answer is to start by making Artificer a half caster.

You should talk to my players I am constantly calling for intelligent checks.

[jaappleton]

All that's missing is an arcane half caster.
Yes, I know, there are no divine one-third casters, but that doesn't really matter, as all divine classes are at least half casters already.
But a simple arcane half caster would be a Godsend to build subclasses for. Keep it simple, and let the subclasses do the brunt of the work for differentiating them.

edit:
Incidentally, I think Artificer should have been an half caster, but I do NOT think it was the one that we need to fill this gap. That would be a secondary arcane half caster for me. Artificer for those that want it, and a second arcane half caster to build up with subclasses.

I think an Arcane Half caster would be the best thing to slap some existing concepts on. Like the Stone Sorc. That doesn't belong on the Sorc, not that concept. I'm all for an Earth based Sorc, but not like that.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think an Arcane Half caster would be the best thing to slap some existing concepts on. Like the Stone Sorc. That doesn't belong on the Sorc, not that concept. I'm all for an Earth based Sorc, but not like that.

Yep.
And keep it simple.
Extra Attack, and a few universally useful features.
Then let the subclasses turn that into a Duskblade who channels spells through weapons, or a Swordmage who tanks with magic, or a Magus who blends sword and sorcery better than any of the currently existing options, or a Daggerspell Mage for the Rogue lovers, or whatever.
You'd choose your subclass at level 2, when you get your spellcasting. This idea would create a class that was heavier on subclass featured levels than what we currently have. Instead of 3 or 4 subclass levels, make it like 5 or 6.

[Ralanr]

Ancestral Guardian barbarian is one of the most powerful subclasses in the game.

And I honestly dislike the flavor of it. Feels a bit too much like totem warrior in that you're being empowered by multiple or a singular being.

Why are barbarians suddenly acting as conduits for other beings to utilize? Isn't that the Warlocks or Clerics thing? Can't we just do superhuman/supernatural feats because we ourselves are just really pissed off?

Mechanically I actually really like ancestral guardian. I don't like it fluffewise. If that was the one that got published, I could work with it.

[Tetrasodium]

Cavalier is boring as all get out, but still potentially useful in the sense that its a Battlemaster that trades a maneuver (probably Riposte, which is a non-trivial sacrifice) for a skill proficiency and unique defensive maneuver. All of the mount stuff is basically a ribbon, which is weird considering the flavor of the class, but whatever.

I think the thing it's missing most is a maneuver that lets it act on the mount's initiative and/or the mount to act on it's initiative. If that seems illogical, look at controlling a mount on PHB198 & the second paragraph of mounted combat on that same page to see just how broad the classification of what can ridden as a mount.


Cavalier... makes a really poor mounted character. I get that they didn't want the character to be worthless when off his mount, but they went way too far. He needs to get abilities that are actually better when he is on a mount.

-The Ferocious Charger ability doesn't even have anything to do with charging.
-The mount is surely going to die without Mounted Combatant. Which is funny because that is what the class is good at saving from falling off your dying mount.
-The mounting dismounting thing is the ONLY incentive to actually have a mount.
-Base paladin actually does it better with share spells and a spell that can summon a mount in the event your current one dies.

The bottom line is the cavalier is a weak BM with a cool ward ability to replace riposte, which for most people is not an upgrade. If it weren't called cavalier, 90% of people playing this class would never even have a horse. As it stands there is still no real benefit.

It's a very lightly reskinned BM. Basically it's like asking for a Pepsi and they throw a pepsi label on a can of tea and expect you to act like the taste isn't off.


the standard mounts are pretty papery yes, but in order for something to be a mount.. it only needs to be one size or more & have an "appropriate" anatomy. moon druids are amazingly difficult to kill mounts & no slouch on their own when it comes to eating stuff.

[SharkForce]

Gaze of Khirad... NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I really liked at-will X-Ray vision :smallannoyed:.

you can still have it. it's the ghostly vision one or whatever they called it.

edit: almost forgot my general opinion...

kinda meh, overall. i like the invocations, though i'm not sure i like them more than i liked them when they were attached to specific patrons and such. shepherd druid looks fairly powerful, but not terribly exciting (though i guess the base druid class offers a lot already). not sure why it needs to exclude elemental summons, but whatever.

[Bloodcloud]

An Intelligence based Half Caster. That's what I want.

So much... And the stone sorcerer seemed to have the abilities it should have.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I know some want Artificers to be full casters but to me, they are a good candidate for half caster status. The 1/3 just doesn't cut it, so I've home-brewed it to half for a player who wanted to play one in our next campaign.

If you could link that homebrew I'd be grateful. One of my players loves artificers and was a bit disappointed with the lack of spells the UA had. And some other things too about it but spells are a start.


Side note. Arcane half caster Int based would make the perfect class for these subclasses : Duskblade/Arcane Archer, Sword mage tank, War/battle mage who goes in the thick of it with nothing but spells, and fun ways to use them, Antimage Fighter type.

[Nicrosil]

I feel like a lot of these are good changes, though I agree the Cavalier is boring. If they want to emphasize the mount aspect, they should start by at least giving it bonus HP/AC, similar to the revised ranger beastmaster. I'm honestly still really confused how the mounted combat rules work, but there should be more maneuvers that let you and the mount attack in tandem, again, like the beastmaster. Heck, give them the find steed spell too, maybe.

[Arkhios]

Side note. Arcane half caster Int based would make the perfect class for these subclasses : Duskblade/Arcane Archer, Sword mage tank, War/battle mage who goes in the thick of it with nothing but spells, and fun ways to use them, Antimage Fighter type.

Off topic, but I've been working on that. Basing it upon Spell Sword prestige class, and likely including Arcane Archer, Duskblade, and Swordmage as subclasses, but alas, I've been busy with studies and now I'm busy with work :(

[Maxilian]

I feel like a lot of these are good changes, though I agree the Cavalier is boring. If they want to emphasize the mount aspect, they should start by at least giving it bonus HP/AC, similar to the revised ranger beastmaster. I'm honestly still really confused how the mounted combat rules work, but there should be more maneuvers that let you and the mount attack in tandem, again, like the beastmaster. Heck, give them the find steed spell too, maybe.

It kind of bothers me that the Cavalier does not have the mount as part of the class (like the BM and their pets, the Artificer and their creation, or paladins with Find Steed at least)

[Beechgnome]

If you could link that homebrew I'd be grateful. One of my players loves artificers and was a bit disappointed with the lack of spells the UA had. And some other things too about it but spells are a start.
Snip.

I didn't do much, other than change the spell progression to match pal/ranger, then added extra spells from EE and UA and some 5th level spells.

1st Beast bond, guiding hand, healing elixir, snare
2nd Pyrotechnics, Skywrite
5th Animate objects, Conjure Volley, Creation, Greater Restoration, Legend Lore, Passwall, Scrying, Seeming

[toapat]

I'm finding a lot to like here except the Oath of Conquest. Not because it's poorly designed, but because as a player choice it's terrible.

I mean, this stuff will end up AL legal. Can you imagine someone playing with those tenets? It's basically unplayable in AL, and an awful idea in most other campaigns. It'll see limited use at best.

Limited use that was already covered by the Oathbreaker Paladin.

Why are we getting one (and sadly, likely two) options that are practically unplayable for players as player options?

1: its more likely to be Oath of Redemption which is even less mechanically coherent than Treachery.
2: Redemption is trying to be the caster, tank, and ascetic knight all at once, allowing each part to be completely indistinct from the other parts and generally making the class flavorfully similar to but mechanically different from ancients paladin which is just being a tank (with an abundance of spank) paladin


I don't care about any of these subclasses except Conquest....and that's only because I don't want players choosing it.

I'm starting to think there isn't actually much design space left in 5e unless they're going to start making entirely new full classes. The subclasses in the PhB all seem very distinct and flavorful, everything since then has been bland, mixed from other subclasses or straight up nonsensical. All they can think of is invocations to pile on to warlocks apparently, as if we need more Warlock characters at tables.

I feel the devs are playing too safely with class design in 5E more than they are running out of ideas, alot of classes are just lacking in exploration there.

now, in terms of mistakes: Supremacy Dice/Maneuvers and Ki mechanically serve a similar function and thus eat into eachother's design space in a long term system health problem.

some classes are Over-specialized. the Druid, Ranger, and Monk are each very specific character ideas rather than general classes, to the point where Druid could be a Cleric domain and a Primal Fury barbarian, and ranger's leftover space that isnt shared with druid turned into a Houndmaster or Survival Fighter.

Monk comparatively to Ranger + Druid who are reductionist classes, is actually built too far into a single direction as a "Shaolin master"

now, as for class ideas they could probably add that i came up with real fast:

Paladin: Knight Commander, Hospitaliar, Jedi, and Spell Knight Paladin
Warlock: Order and Chaos patrons
Bard: Pied Piper
Barbarian: Warborn (Kratos or ASoIaF's Bron)
Cleric: Revelry or Leadership domain, Miracle (summoning) domain
Fighter: might be kinda full? although they could use a proper Warlord
Druid: i got nothing
monk: Vengeance? the 7 monk subs actually cover everything besides Magical Girl transformations i can think of this class should cover, just not in the way the class should be built which would allow for 4E and Sunsoul to not be second tier
Ranger: ?
Rogue: might actually be full. we have 2 skillmonkeys, Murder Hobo, Arcane Trickster, and Swashbuckler
Sorcerer: Spellshaper? i can see plenty of space doing bloodline paths, but with Guide to Everything every base variant seems to be fulfilled if not perfectly
Wizard: ya, this is also in the same boat as sorc in that it looks morel ike everything is done rather than not being an inherently sparse idea

[Tetrasodium]

I feel like a lot of these are good changes, though I agree the Cavalier is boring. If they want to emphasize the mount aspect, they should start by at least giving it bonus HP/AC, similar to the revised ranger beastmaster. I'm honestly still really confused how the mounted combat rules work, but there should be more maneuvers that let you and the mount attack in tandem, again, like the beastmaster. Heck, give them the find steed spell too, maybe.


You really are not missing anything. mounted combat seems confusing because of what you don't see

Without the feat mounted combatant you get to move with your mount's speed if the mount is controlled.
Without the feat, you can choose to let the mount be "independent", which means that it does whatever the hell it wants like move/attack your foes/run you past everything itching to make an AoO on one of you, run away, or be useful .
If the mount is intelligent, it is always independent.
If the mount is "moved" against heir will, the rider must make a dc10 dex save or fall off. a saddle allows this to be made at advantage
if you are mounted, you can use a lance one handed
If the mount is the subject of a find steed spell, the paladin caster can share spells down to the mount.
if the rider has levels in rogue an independent mount qualifies for point two of sneak attack "You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."
if the mount's movement is subject to an AoO, the attacker can choose either the rider or the mount to strike
by strict absolute reading of raw, the mount moving & causing a foe to leave the threat range of the rider could technically allow the rider to make an AoO because the movement is voluntary & not on the rider's turn. To be fair, this is an extremely fine splitting of hairs
if the mount's ovement opens it to being hit by an AoO, the attacker can choose to attack either the mount or rider

If the rider has the feat, the following comes into play

The rider has advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than the mount.
the rider can force an attack targeted at the mount to ]target[/b] the rider instead. That emphaseswill be made clear below
If the mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.


If the mount has Sentinel (ie a moon druid who took it), the following fun twists come into play

When the mount hits a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature’s speed becomes 0 for the rest of
the turn.
Creatures within 5 feet of the mount provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage
action before leaving their reach.
When a creature within 5 feet of the mount makes an attack against a target other than the mount (and that target doesn’t have this feat), the mount can use their reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature. MM10/11 confirms natural weapons are weapons in the melee & ranged attacks section... as does statblocks, as did the druid podcast. This is the thing that makes that emphases important... because the rider forces to attack to target them, the mount with sentinel can make an AoO


If the mount has mobile ie (pretty much only ever a moon druid acting as a mount can meet this), everything applies normal to the mount is if the mount is able to nullify the AoO risk by attacking someone, the rider too is not the subject of an AoO.

If the mount is the subject of a teleportation type effect like misty step/cape of the mountebank, they can choose to carry the rider with them.

If you have a saddle of the cavalier on the mount. The mount gets those benefits & attacks against it are made at disadvantage

Effects like chain lightning & such that jump can jump from mount to rider & back

A large mount occupies a 10' square & as a result both mount & rider can threaten a much larger area, this goes up as the mount size increases.

Regardless of anything currently, if the mount is independent, The rider can be left in a situation where they are out of the action & losing a round till the mount's initiative comes around toclose into range or something

I do not believe there are any other things you can squeeze out of mounted combat as is. Mounted combat seems involved because there are almost no benefits without the feat or a moon druid with a relevant feat is the mount


Late edit: since just about the only way that a mount can get feats is to be a druid/polymorphed PC type thing, almost all of that generally does not apply

[Waterdeep Merch]

1: its more likely to be Oath of Redemption which is even less mechanically coherent than Treachery.
2: Redemption is trying to be the caster, tank, and ascetic knight all at once, allowing each part to be completely indistinct from the other parts and generally making the class flavorfully similar to but mechanically different from ancients paladin which is just being a tank (with an abundance of spank) paladin
I actually forgot about the Redemption Paladin. It gives me some hope for something in the book geared for paladins that isn't yet a third evil type, but the last iteration was, indeed, a bit of a mess. Hopefully we'll see some better meshing of its abilities.

[DeAnno]

It's a real shame about the Moon Bow being gone, that was an interesting idea. The new smites aren't exactly bad though, they're just built in a different way. I can see them being useful especially because of the auto-prone (No save! Huge creatures!) instead of the damage, which is beneficial for many different builds and party compositions. The language about the Warlock spell slot is pretty concerning for any attempts at a Warlock/Bard melee focused build though.

The main thing I don't like is that level 5 becomes such a critical level for any melee warlock; you pretty much need a whole different schtick until then and your Blade pact is kind of useless for 3&4. I guess the thing to do is have 16 in Cha and in your Attack stat when you create your character and be an EB spammer until level 5.

I'm really sad about Cloak of the Flies. It was a cool little thing that wasn't overpowered before but the usage limit makes it really awkward.

[toapat]

I actually forgot about the Redemption Paladin. It gives me some hope for something in the book geared for paladins that isn't yet a third evil type, but the last iteration was, indeed, a bit of a mess. Hopefully we'll see some better meshing of its abilities.

whatever oath ends up being called redemption, i hope to hell its only based on one of the components of the original UA version.

and that they dont go full pants on head and decide that treachery isnt a clone of Oathbreaker despite literally being Oathbreaker with a few minor tweaks

[Kane0]

As someone currently playing a Conquering Paladin these changes are decent (no more disadvantage on saves vs fear, but much better options for targeting a bundle of people and controlling them)
As someone who is a warlock fan these changes are fantastic! Cloak of flies doesn't really need a rest limitation though, just makes it awkward.
Haven't read over the others.

[MrStabby]

Eh, it's OK as a set I suppose. I like the druid quite a bit and the oath of conquest is good. The warlock celestial I find underwhelming - not in power but in fun. The healing power seems very powerful though.

Cavalier I find a terrible concept, like others. A class that is contingent on a particular campaign type and has little to offer in others is a bit limiting I believe.

The invocations are still good, but I liked the idea of more patron specific invocations - shame to lose them.

[GorogIrongut]

Druid = okay... not something I was eagerly looking forward to but I can see other people being excited.
Cavalier = boring and subpar
Paladin = a good addition to the paladin possibilities. Someone mentioned that it was a good fit for an evil paladin and I agree. I'm all for increased variability.
Warlock = a mixed bag. I think the subclass is good enough. I however HATE the changes to the invocations. They're so boring. Give us back patron specific invocations, whoever decided they didn't like those was a numpty. Each of the previous ones had such flavour (along with effectiveness). My anger at the changes are sufficient for me to ignore almost this entire update (yes invocation badness trumps the slight good in the form of the Druid/Paladin/Warlock subclasses). In one fell swoop they made me stop wanting to play a hexblade.

[Beechgnome]

My general feeling on the Cavalier is it's a weird thing to base an archetype on mounted combat, given how infrequently that option comes up indoors, for example. But having said that, if you were going to do it, the class needs more distinct maneuvers. Warding in interesting but Control Mount seems super niche.

Shepherd is good. Obviously by my homebrews I like Druids, but this hits a lot of the right notes for the summoning druid niche. I do wonder if the extra fey stuff spells the end of the Circle of Dreams though.

Celestial is much improved over the overpowered Undying Light, though the limit to one target on that 6th level ability is silly.

Conquest is what it is. Some will love it; I think it's best served as a Villanous NPC option, but to each his own.

As for the invocations, it opens more variety to make them all in play, no matter the Pact, but I kind of liked the Pact specific invocations. It created a subtle way to power nudge less optimized Pacts and made them distinct. Again, I am biased here, having spent a couple hours making Undying invocations.

[sightlessrealit]

I wouldn't make hasty assumptions about any of the previously presented sub-classes. Even though Raven Queen wasn't included in this revision, it might still come in a later revision, or it might have been considered good enough as it was in the first place. I would consider these revisions as a way to refine some of the most liked concepts which just happened to have more problems to deal with.



I know, just seeing the stuff that relates to the Hexblade sort of makes seem unlikely. Lets take Relentless Hex for example. One could argue that an enemy killing your Raven would be a curse effect in of itself. But there's to mention of it.

But yeah, there's still time so here's hoping. ^-^

[deathadder99]

Except that one is now mathematically superior to the other.

With the higher smite damage from the previous version, plus the fact you required a specific weapon type depending on patron, it actually made sense to choose between X, Y, or Z and have it be somewhat balanced.

Now, EB mechanically is the better choice, like it was before.

The most you can do with the smite now is 2d6+Str+6d8+Cha and 2d6+Str+Cha once per round, sacrificing spell slots vs. 1d10+cha*4 per round without sacrificing spell slots.

66 Average damage slashing (greatsword, lifedrinker and thirsting blade, no magic weapon 20 Str and 20 Cha) at the cost of a spell slot vs. 44 Average damage force (20 Cha) without a spell slot.
Not much of a damage spike, when compared to the smite spells that Hexblades already get.

Realistically the Smite damage is actually going to be 56, since it's now smarter to go with sword and board or two handed longsword so you can use Cha to hit and damage vs. MADding it up with Str that a greatsword requires.

So... 62 average vs. 44. Not much "spike" there.

Plus you can still quicken EB if you go sorcerer and want to have a nova feel to things.

Yup, also the fact that 1d8 damage is absolutely pitiful (if you're comparing it to casting spells). And warlocks have barely any slots to smite with anyway... it's good on paladins because they get so much good stuff, I don't even think the 2d8 was that unbalanced either...

[jaappleton]

I really like the Pact Specific Invocations from the previous article. I honestly strongly, strongly dislike the ones presented here. Not necessarily because they're all mostly nerfed (They are). But because they all helped reinforce the identities of the Patrons.

GOO really began to feel otherworldly and mysterious, Fiend had abilities to truly seem like things you shouldn't want to mess with, etc.

I don't get that feeling whatsoever from these new Invocations.

[Citan]

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/June5UA_RevisedClassOptv1.pdf

Revised Circle of the Shepard for Druids

Revised Cavalier for Fighters

Revised Oath of Conquest for Paladins

Celestial Patron for Warlocks (seems to be new Undying Light)

Revised Invocations for Warlocks

Quick opinion.

1) Druid: Bear (Beer? ^^) Spirit is crazy good imo: enough to warrant a dip in Druid for most casters oriented towards buffs or heal: not only do you get a hefty amount of THP, but the advantage on STR checks will make every melee ally very good at grappling, without any concentration required.
Other features, at a very quick glance, seems not OP.

2) Paladin: Paladin Sorcerer is not officially the best multiclass, with Warlock being a close contender. Why? Bestow Curse, which is non-concentration when cast at 5th level. That spell was only dearly missing in Sorcerer list because extremely powerful paired with Heightened. Before, you had to invest 5 levels in Bard to get it. Now you don't. Only thing that "saves" this multiclass to be breaking is the fact that the full Oath is borderline broken in itself. ^^

3) Warlock: they corrected the big flaws of "Undying Light" (namely: big damage boost at 1st level). Seems ok to me now (did not read the additional Invocations).

4) Cavalier: honestly did not read, not interested.^^

[Misterwhisper]

I really like the Pact Specific Invocations from the previous article. I honestly strongly, strongly dislike the ones presented here. Not necessarily because they're all mostly nerfed (They are). But because they all helped reinforce the identities of the Patrons.

GOO really began to feel otherworldly and mysterious, Fiend had abilities to truly seem like things you shouldn't want to mess with, etc.

I don't get that feeling whatsoever from these new Invocations.

I am getting the dealing there might be a warlock rework down the like the Ranger got?

[Citan]

If you could link that homebrew I'd be grateful. One of my players loves artificers and was a bit disappointed with the lack of spells the UA had. And some other things too about it but spells are a start.


Side note. Arcane half caster Int based would make the perfect class for these subclasses : Duskblade/Arcane Archer, Sword mage tank, War/battle mage who goes in the thick of it with nothing but spells, and fun ways to use them, Antimage Fighter type.
If you want, I can link to you some homebrew I made that is based on the idea of "elemental fighter". :)


Except that one is now mathematically superior to the other.

With the higher smite damage from the previous version, plus the fact you required a specific weapon type depending on patron, it actually made sense to choose between X, Y, or Z and have it be somewhat balanced.

Now, EB mechanically is the better choice, like it was before.

The most you can do with the smite now is 2d6+Str+6d8+Cha and 2d6+Str+Cha once per round, sacrificing spell slots vs. 1d10+cha*4 per round without sacrificing spell slots.

66 Average damage slashing (greatsword, lifedrinker and thirsting blade, no magic weapon 20 Str and 20 Cha) at the cost of a spell slot vs. 44 Average damage force (20 Cha) without a spell slot.
Except that it's not.
You seem to entirely miss the point of "smiting" abilities: it's to get to sure-strike damage.

How can you get advantage on ranged attacks such as Eldricht Blast? Means exist, but are quite limited: essentially being unseen by the enemy (doable only as a Fey Warlock, multiclass, or nice ally) or using a spell such as Faerie Fire.
Or allies may grant you advantage on a single attack through several ways, but then it really has to count.
Whereas it's much easier to get advantage on melee attacks, through class features (Barbarian) or Shoving.
So it's easier to make reliable melee weapon attacks on which you can ensure a hefty amount of damage.

Another consideration, taking EB vs ranged weapons: you can get some magic buff on your longbow, as well as multiclass (if allowed) into Fighter to get a nifty +2 to attack roll. Nothing of the like for Eldricht Blast.

Yet another consideration, taking EB vs weapons in general: since it has been errataed (IIRC) that you can make a pact with any existing weapon, you can have an already magic weapon to use as your pact weapon, benefitting yet again from its bonus. Or get a magic quiver for ranged weapons.
Again, nothing of the like for EB.

While the last point is certainly dependent on the DM's goodwill, the other points remain strong and rely only on your teamwork skills (it's rare that noone in the party would have at least one or two ways to buff you). That's why you cannot compare EB and "smite" because they each cater to different situations.

[jaappleton]

I am getting the dealing there might be a warlock rework down the like the Ranger got?

It's quite interesting you say that.

In a recent AMA, Mike Mearls said he was quite unhappy with the Warlock in the PHB. The Patrons and Pacts don't give enough identity to the Warlock. Really, I agree; Tome and Chain don't play differently enough, for example. The Patron abilities are too few and far between for my tastes.

Mearls feels the same.

So, to insinuate there may be a whole Warlock rework... I think its a slim chance. But I think its a definite possibility.

[Misterwhisper]

As for this UA,

Druid subclass nobody really cared about.
Fighter class nobody cared about in the first place.
Paladin oath that can never be official because it can't be played is their official settings.
And a huge pile of garbage for warlocks.

I am completely ignoring that this UA even came out.
2 subclasses nobody cared about, 1 that can never be official in print anyway, and a nerd at to everything that was in the last warlock UA.

Screw this UA, I am out.

[Tetrasodium]

Quick opinion.

1) Druid: Bear (Beer? ^^) Spirit is crazy good imo: enough to warrant a dip in Druid for most casters oriented towards buffs or heal: not only do you get a hefty amount of THP, but the advantage on STR checks will make every melee ally very good at grappling, without any concentration required.
Other features, at a very quick glance, seems not OP.



The spirit totem comes at spirit druid2, so it would be 7 thp across the group (nice but hardly "oh man that bear spirit saved our ass big time") & the other casters don't quite have the same depth of critter summoning (necromancer army aside). On the multiclassing front however, is that it gives a life cleric something comparable to a druid taking a splash in life cleric (they get heavy armor, disciple of life, some cantrips, & cure wounds as a prep slot free domain spell). The life cleric gets goodberry w/ their existing disciple of life, a couple more cantrips, an awesome buff they can throw down on the group after any short rest, and standard very low level wildshape for hiding/utility. Both gain access to the other's first level spells too. You are right though on the multiclassing aspect, not too powerful at all while simultaniously giving a reason for other classes to maybe say "hmmmmmm...." when considering multiclassing options. I hadn't really considered the other classes oicking it up after so many years of "yea there's realy no reason to multiclass into druid"

[miburo]

Interesting UA this time around. My thoughts:

Druid Shepherd Circle: I like the concept of being a nature summoner, definitely a great niche to fit in between Land and Moon archetypes. The 14th level ability is a bit off to me in that it basically gives you a 9th level spell slot once per long rest. Not sure if any other class gets that kind of upcast that early, but I could be wrong.

Fighter Cavalier: Interesting archetype, questionable execution. Battlemaster with Mounted Combatant does it better. Also I don't think Combat Superiority should be used across multiple classes.

Warlock Celestial: It's verging a bit much on the Paladin itself (mini lay on hands, some flame/radiant damage + self-healing). But it does make a pretty effective gish. Combine this with blade pact, greenflame blade, and a couple of the new invocations, and you have a pretty nice damage-dealing, self-healing bladelock. Though I'd probably choose Kiss of Mephistopheles to get a free fireball over something like Flame Strike.

Warlock pacts: Honestly I think these are a lot better than the last set. Smite damage is equivalent to Pallies (well, slightly less given you need a 5th level slot for what Pallies get at 4th level), but it's good for short rest slots. And the ability to knock targets prone without a save is pretty sweet. Gift of the Ever Living ones is a really nice buff for Chainlocks (max healing, yay!). Maddening Hex is pretty cool as well.



Off topic, but I've been working on that. Basing it upon Spell Sword prestige class, and likely including Arcane Archer, Duskblade, and Swordmage as subclasses, but alas, I've been busy with studies and now I'm busy with work :(

Heh also off-topic but I wrote up my own Spellsword base class (in my sig below). Chose not to go with Extra Attack but focused on simultaneous spell + attack cast instead. We definitely need an Int-based halfcaster. I do agree halfcaster Artificer would be an interesting take on this that isn't a gish concept, which is admittedly pretty overdone already (Bladelock, Paladin, Valor Bard, Eldritch Knight, etc.)

[Millstone85]

I now appreciate what they were trying to do with the fluff of the Undying Light. It certainly felt more inspired than just saying okay, there was the Fiend, now here is the Celestial.

But I still think the Undying Light made for a better sorcerous origin than an otherworldly patron. Every discussion I had on it revolved around some kind of light entity, not just the connection with the Positive Plane it was supposed to be.

And Volo's aasimar, with their +2 Charisma and their angelic guide, were just begging for the Celestial.

[Ninja-Radish]

I like many of the Warlock invocations, but why did they nerf Cloak of Flies so damn hard? Once per short rest, are they joking? Considering it does poison damage, which half of the Monster Manual is resistant or immune too, what's the point of nerfing it? Now it's only good for the occasional Intimidation check, utterly useless in combat.

Particularly when you look at Maddening Hex, which is light years better. Psychic damage? Oh yeah, very few things are resistant to that. However, one thing is unclear: when you activate it, how long does it last?

[Zalabim]

Sucks all the power and flavor out of the invocations. I'll just go back to Beast Speech and Eyes of the Rune Keeper if there aren't going to be invocations that do anything.

Oh, but now you can combine 6 different invocations for your EB for extra damage, 10' push, 10' pull, 10' snare, extra range, and a fireball for any patron.


And the specific weapon requirements as well. Previously, there was no way to get a Warlock melee smite with either Dex or Cha. It was Str only unless you were using a Fey Bow. Now any Warlock can use Dex, and Pact of the Blade Hexblades can even use Cha.
It's really hard to justify spending a spell slot on up to 6d8 damage unless you've already spent a spell slot on up to 25 temp hp and thorns damage, can't cast or can't rely on the damage from up to 6d10 damage from Hellish Rebuke, and wouldn't rather blow them up with up to 10d6 damage from Kiss of Mephistopheles. It'll be useful on crits, but it is at the absolutely minimum threshold of damage to be worth using. With the cost of an invocation, I might not ever get around to taking this choice.

Grasp of Hadar (As it is now, is rarely useful) as you can only pull them 10 (not 10 per each hit like the repelling blast) -that makes me sad-
Grasp of Hadar has the interesting use of pulling a creature out of, so you can push them back into, a persistent damaging zone.


One is for consistent dpr, the other is for nova. Not much point comparing them, as they serve different functions.
Eldritch Smite and Kiss of Mephistopheles serve somewhat similar functions, except the one for EB looks a bit stronger.

[Millstone85]

Particularly when you look at Maddening Hex, which is light years better. Psychic damage? Oh yeah, very few things are resistant to that. However, one thing is unclear: when you activate it, how long does it last?I believe it is instantaneous.

Bonus action -> Cha mod psychic damage to an enemy under your Hex and their nearby pals.

No attack roll, no saving throw, and no need for a short or long rest. You can totally do it again on your next turn.

Is this OP? I think it might be.

[Corran]

Quick opinion.
2) Paladin: Paladin Sorcerer is not officially the best multiclass, with Warlock being a close contender. Why? Bestow Curse, which is non-concentration when cast at 5th level. That spell was only dearly missing in Sorcerer list because extremely powerful paired with Heightened. Before, you had to invest 5 levels in Bard to get it. Now you don't. Only thing that "saves" this multiclass to be breaking is the fact that the full Oath is borderline broken in itself. ^^

To add to that, it kind of annoys me that they gave AoA as an oath spell. This spell just begs for multiclassing with a full caster. I think that mechanically they aimed for this oath to play with temp hp and damage reduction, both of which pair well with the lvl 15 ability, all that besides the fear theme (which is something that puts me off as well, as I thought the fear theme was covered, and covered well, by the oathbreaker). But I dont like that they just took a warlock toy and slapped it on this oath. Feels kinda cheap and lazy.

Same goes for spiritual weapon. They wanted to have this oath portray an unconquerable warrior that has extra toys in battle? Give them something else, create a channel divinity or oath features to achieve that, dont give them the cleric's toys!

All in all, fear theme is covered by the oathbreaker, boosting combat capabilities by just trhwoing in there AoA and SW feels like a cheap way to go about it and a ''f*** you'' to warlocks and clerics (and makes little sense with the underlying theme), and last but not least I kind of think that the oath is a bit too front loaded too. The fear CD is just another version of the oathbreaker's one, which just shows how lazily of an attempt this oath is.

I like the concept, and I think it deserves a place in the new book, but I hate the execution. I would much prefer to see new mechanics, not just something that seems to be a result of going through the phb and cherry picking powerful options and then putting them all together in the package of a new oath. Honestly as is, it gives me the impression of a badly made homebrew, like the ones we see from time to time in the dndwiki.



Eldritch Smite and Kiss of Mephistopheles serve somewhat similar functions, except the one for EB looks a bit stronger.
Wow, that's a strong invocation! Strange that it is not restricted to the fiend patron...

[Pex]

I like many of the Warlock invocations, but why did they nerf Cloak of Flies so damn hard? Once per short rest, are they joking? Considering it does poison damage, which half of the Monster Manual is resistant or immune too, what's the point of nerfing it? Now it's only good for the occasional Intimidation check, utterly useless in combat.

Particularly when you look at Maddening Hex, which is light years better. Psychic damage? Oh yeah, very few things are resistant to that. However, one thing is unclear: when you activate it, how long does it last?

Not everything the party fights will be resistant or immune to poison. It's irrelevant how many creatures are in the monster manual. The party is not going to fight them all. They are only going to fight what the DM says they fight. When it happens the party does fight something that is resistant or immune to poison, do something else and don't resent it. You don't need to use all your abilities all the time for every combat.

[rbstr]

The main thing I don't like is that level 5 becomes such a critical level for any melee warlock; you pretty much need a whole different schtick until then and your Blade pact is kind of useless for 3&4. I guess the thing to do is have 16 in Cha and in your Attack stat when you create your character and be an EB spammer until level 5.

With the Improved Weapon invocation I think the Blade is actually better. It's a free +1 weapon. Best EB does is 1d10+cha. Blade is probably going to be either 2d6+str+1 or 1d8+dex/cha/str+1. And the Blade is more accurate.

You're in a pretty good place as soon as you hit level 3 vs. Blasting. Now level 2? You've gotta blast, basically, luckily you can swap the invocation at 3.

[alchahest]

a couple thoughts:
1: Tomb of Levistus can add a lot of temp HP... that if they are needed that badly, the downsides of it will probably leave you dead. let's say you're level 10, that's 100temp HP, and you're incapacitated until the end of your next turn and vulnerable to fire.
2: Why does everyone tie conquest to evil? It can work perfectly fine for a fearsome general on the side of light as well. Think Elrond at the battle of the last alliance, orcs cowering in fear as he cut them down left and right. It's no more evil than all the massive amounts of damage that a vengeance paladin deals out, it just deals more in being terrifying than in slicing the meat from your bones. The Paladin of Conquest is just a bulwark of terrifying holy might, where the Paladin of Vengeance is literally a holy terminator, chasing down even fleeing foes to murder them. I don't see the argument that fear is more evil than brutal murder.

[skaddix]

They took the poor Warlock out back and broke their legs.

Massive Nerfs. Sorcadin Back On Top. Maybe moreso when we see what Sorcerer subclasses make the cut.
All the Warlock 2-6 has going for it our short rest recovery slots.

Speaking of Sorcadin's Conquest is appealing Spiritual Weapon, Armor of Agathys, and Hold Person that might be the best dip possible out of all Paladin Subclasses. Plus a Channel Divinity that makes all foes in 30 ft Frightened. That is hard to beat.

Hexblade kinda buffed I guess in that they can smite with shield and now only need two stats but that is speculation

Shepard Druid is boring but buffed to be the main minion master I guess.

Conquest is pretty strong. And if you get to 20 you get to make Fighters and Barbarians Cry during Boss Fights. Resistance to Everything, Paladin Innate safe bonus from CHA, expanded crit range and you still get to smite and use spells. Plus bonus radiant damage on every weapon hit.

Cavalier don't care enough to think about.

[SharkForce]

It's quite interesting you say that.

In a recent AMA, Mike Mearls said he was quite unhappy with the Warlock in the PHB. The Patrons and Pacts don't give enough identity to the Warlock. Really, I agree; Tome and Chain don't play differently enough, for example. The Patron abilities are too few and far between for my tastes.

Mearls feels the same.

So, to insinuate there may be a whole Warlock rework... I think its a slim chance. But I think its a definite possibility.

can it be done by someone other than the current dev team? the current ones seem to be focused on making them less different, not more.


I believe it is instantaneous.

Bonus action -> Cha mod psychic damage to an enemy under your Hex and their nearby pals.

No attack roll, no saving throw, and no need for a short or long rest. You can totally do it again on your next turn.

Is this OP? I think it might be.

you're kidding, right? 5 damage to a small AoE as a bonus action? it's not nothing, but this is far from exciting. the fireball one, now *that* is crazy.



2: Why does everyone tie conquest to evil? It can work perfectly fine for a fearsome general on the side of light as well. Think Elrond at the battle of the last alliance, orcs cowering in fear as he cut them down left and right. It's no more evil than all the massive amounts of damage that a vengeance paladin deals out, it just deals more in being terrifying than in slicing the meat from your bones. The Paladin of Conquest is just a bulwark of terrifying holy might, where the Paladin of Vengeance is literally a holy terminator, chasing down even fleeing foes to murder them. I don't see the argument that fear is more evil than brutal murder.

you mean apart from the fact that they are literally given a mandate to terrify people into submission, destroy hope, show no mercy, make examples of people who disobey them, or their belief in "might makes right"? or that most of them are hell knights who have literally sworn an oath to serve devils?

gee, i wonder why people might get evil vibes from that...

[Ninja-Radish]

I believe it is instantaneous.

Bonus action -> Cha mod psychic damage to an enemy under your Hex and their nearby pals.

No attack roll, no saving throw, and no need for a short or long rest. You can totally do it again on your next turn.

Is this OP? I think it might be.

It's definitely good but hardly OP. It is in direct competition with the Hex spell for bonus action usage, after all. In addition, it requires the Hex spell to have been cast on the target first. Makes management of bonus actions pretty tricky.

[MrStabby]

It's quite interesting you say that.

In a recent AMA, Mike Mearls said he was quite unhappy with the Warlock in the PHB. The Patrons and Pacts don't give enough identity to the Warlock. Really, I agree; Tome and Chain don't play differently enough, for example. The Patron abilities are too few and far between for my tastes.

Mearls feels the same.

So, to insinuate there may be a whole Warlock rework... I think its a slim chance. But I think its a definite possibility.

I... kind of hope so but hadn't thought about this before. The warlock is thematically great and i like the concepts of the pacts and invocations but as it is almost all warlocks seem identical. Usually fiend pact with eldritch blast and pact of the tome - not that pact makes much difference as they play the same way for 90% of turns where they just cast their cantrip. Great ideas with exceptionally boring execution.

[Ninja-Radish]

Not everything the party fights will be resistant or immune to poison. It's irrelevant how many creatures are in the monster manual. The party is not going to fight them all. They are only going to fight what the DM says they fight. When it happens the party does fight something that is resistant or immune to poison, do something else and don't resent it. You don't need to use all your abilities all the time for every combat.

Never mind, I figured out what the uses of each are. Maddening Hex can only be used on the target of your Hex spell, whereas Cloak of Flies doesn't require use of Hex first. Still too harsh of a nerf by far.

[rbstr]

I really like the two-stage Patron/Pact pick and the invocation grab-bag the warlock has, though. It makes it a really customizable class with a TON of different character concepts in it.

I get that people sometimes don't like being just an Eldritch Blast machine...but don't martial classes kind of devolve into just being stabbing machines to a very similar extent?

Perhaps the thing to do is give them more short rest slots but make the slot level progression slower? Then fill in a couple more patron or pact features.
Or make EB a class feature rather than a cantrip. You can pick Blade or Blast at like level 2 or something?

[Millstone85]

It's definitely good but hardly OP. It is in direct competition with the Hex spell for bonus action usage, after all. In addition, it requires the Hex spell to have been cast on the target first. Makes management of bonus actions pretty tricky.What is tricky about that? The Hex spell only requires your bonus action when it is cast or to transfer the curse to a new victim. Every other turn? Maddening Hex, Maddening Hex, Maddening Hex...


you're kidding, right? 5 damage to a small AoE as a bonus action? it's not nothing, but this is far from exciting. the fireball one, now *that* is crazy.You know Fireball and can cast it as a bonus action, expending a spell slot as normal.


you mean apart from the fact that they are literally given a mandate to terrify people into submission, destroy hope, show no mercy, make examples of people who disobey them, or their belief in "might makes right"? or that most of them are hell knights who have literally sworn an oath to serve devils?

gee, i wonder why people might get evil vibes from that...To be fair, we do not know if *most* of them are hell knights. But since the others are knight tyrants and iron mongers... Yeah.

[jaappleton]

I... kind of hope so but hadn't thought about this before. The warlock is thematically great and i like the concepts of the pacts and invocations but as it is almost all warlocks seem identical. Usually fiend pact with eldritch blast and pact of the tome - not that pact makes much difference as they play the same way for 90% of turns where they just cast their cantrip. Great ideas with exceptionally boring execution.

Precisely.

That's... pretty much exactly what the issue is. And I'd thought it for awhile, but Mearls kinda put it into words for me. I couldn't quite write down what my big issue was with the class prior to reading what he said, and agreeing 100%.

[Puh Laden]

I actually really like this one. The subclasses seem very cohesive: cavalier isn't dependent on their mount, the interaction of conquest's conquering presence and aura of conquest feels really good, and the celestial has a stronger identity than undying light did. They still need some more work but I can at the very least see these coming out in some form.

[DragonSorcererX]

What I thought about this UA:

Druid: Circle of the Shepherd - If you were jealous of the immortality of the Circle of the Moon, don't be, because now you have minions that will try their best to keep you alive.

Fighter: Cavalier - Unless your DM likes to give you cool mounts or you have a Moon Druid "passive" friend with benefits, this is bad...

Paladin: Oath of Consquest - Looks meh, you get good spells, war cleric's channel divinity and a good capstone, but the rest is really bad, I don't think you get XP for making stuff run away...

Warlock: The Celestial - I heard you like healing? This is for you... you will be resilient asf while being a Warlock and dealing a ****ton of damage just by being one!

Warlock: Eldritch Invocations - Everything looks good and that underwater invocation is not use useless anymore, great!

How many of these you guys think there are left? I would like to have a PHB II, even if it is disguised as some Forgotten Realms crap (like dat wonderful Monster Manual II that VGtM was).

[jaappleton]

How many of these you guys think there are left? I would like to have a PHB II, even if it is disguised as some Forgotten Realms crap (like dat wonderful Monster Manual II that VGtM was).

Emphasis mine.

Once or twice a month. That's how it was for quite a long time before the weekly run of UA that prepped for Xan's Guide to Everything.

[Millstone85]

Xan's Guide to Everythinghttps://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/baldursgategame/images/7/70/Xan.png

It is simple, really. Everything is awful. Everything is grim even when you are part of a team.

[DragonSorcererX]

Emphasis mine.

Once or twice a month. That's how it was for quite a long time before the weekly run of UA that prepped for Xan's Guide to Everything.

Oh boiii! You are right! I don't give a **** about Chult, but I heard there are dinos there so it is cool, and I hope to get my Mystic in this Xanathar's Guide to Forgotten Realms Things That Don't Matter Because Eberron Will Send This Mess of A Campaign Setting to the deepest bowels of the Underdark.

[jaappleton]

Oh boiii! You are right! I don't give a **** about Chult, but I heard there are dinos there so it is cool, and I hope to get my Mystic in this Xanathar's Guide to Forgotten Realms Things That Don't Matter Because Eberron Will Send This Mess of A Campaign Setting to the deepest bowels of the Underdark.

Honestly? Hate to burst your bubble but I don't think Mystic will make it in there in time. Well... Part of me thinks that, part of me DOES think it'll be in.

Here's the thing:

Artificer isn't new. It's a 1/3rd caster, it uses already tested mechanics for the game. There's actually nothing new about it. Sure, its a new class, but it all uses existing 5E mechanics.

Mystic? New class. And it SEEMS like its got a bunch of new mechanics for 5E. It does, and at the same time, it doesn't.

Think about it:

It's a reverse engineered Warlock. That's what the Mystic is. Your Psychic Focus is your Invocations, you only get up to 5th level spells, and it uses the Spell Point system from the DMG to determine the cost of its abilities.

...It's a reverse engineered Warlock, really.

So we all know how the Warlock works in 5E. And technically, there shouldn't be anything breaking in reversing how it works. But they have to be careful about how they implement it, to monitor how everything interacts with it.

Anyways... I just don't know if they'll have enough feedback and revisions for the Mystic for it to make it into Xanathar's in time. While it comes out in November, remember that there is a cutoff date well before then, so it has time to print, editing, etc. It's not like they have until November 1st before it needs to be finalized, it has to be final well before then.

[DragonSorcererX]

Honestly? Hate to burst your bubble but I don't think Mystic will make it in there in time. Well... Part of me thinks that, part of me DOES think it'll be in.

Here's the thing:

Artificer isn't new. It's a 1/3rd caster, it uses already tested mechanics for the game. There's actually nothing new about it. Sure, its a new class, but it all uses existing 5E mechanics.

Mystic? New class. And it SEEMS like its got a bunch of new mechanics for 5E. It does, and at the same time, it doesn't.

Think about it:

It's a reverse engineered Warlock. That's what the Mystic is. Your Psychic Focus is your Invocations, you only get up to 5th level spells, and it uses the Spell Point system from the DMG to determine the cost of its abilities.

...It's a reverse engineered Warlock, really.

So we all know how the Warlock works in 5E. And technically, there shouldn't be anything breaking in reversing how it works. But they have to be careful about how they implement it, to monitor how everything interacts with it.

Anyways... I just don't know if they'll have enough feedback and revisions for the Mystic for it to make it into Xanathar's in time. While it comes out in November, remember that there is a cutoff date well before then, so it has time to print, editing, etc. It's not like they have until November 1st before it needs to be finalized, it has to be final well before then.

I know that the Mystic is new to 5e, but, can't a man have his dreams?

I think we will only get psionics when Eberron comes out, and it will take a long time if they WotC wants to explore every part of the Forgotten Realms with it's Samurais and Genie Summoners (wich are both cool)... I hope we get more Tiamat related stuff and an explanation to what happened to the Dragonborn when WotC goes to Unther...

[MasterMercury]

you mean apart from the fact that they are literally given a mandate to terrify people into submission, destroy hope, show no mercy, make examples of people who disobey them, or their belief in "might makes right"? or that most of them are hell knights who have literally sworn an oath to serve devils?

gee, i wonder why people might get evil vibes from that...

Eh, you could argue most of that into a Lawful Neutral, emphasis on LAW! A Judge Dredd type, if you will.

And, it states that the Hell Knights are most vemently opposed by other knights of Conquest. The Hell knights take it too far, and the rest stop them from giving the Oath a bad name.

Douse the Flame of Hope
Rule with an Iron Fist
Strength above All

Granted, not the friendliest of oaths, but it doesn't necessarily have to be straight up evil.
(Not trying to start an alignment battle)

Personally, I really like this Oath, and could be great for more monsterous PCs and NPCs (from hobgoblins to orcs to Goliaths)

[jaappleton]

Eh, you could argue most of that into a Lawful Neutral, emphasis on LAW! A Judge Dredd type, if you will.

And, it states that the Hell Knights are most vemently opposed by other knights of Conquest. The Hell knights take it too far, and the rest stop them from giving the Oath a bad name.

Douse the Flame of Hope
Rule with an Iron Fist
Strength above All

Granted, not the friendliest of oaths, but it doesn't necessarily have to be straight up evil.
(Not trying to start an alignment battle)

Personally, I really like this Oath, and could be great for more monsterous PCs and NPCs (from hobgoblins to orcs to Goliaths)

Law?! I AM THE LAW!

[Tetrasodium]

Fighter: Cavalier - Unless your DM likes to give you cool mounts or you have a Moon Druid "passive" friend with benefits, this is bad...


"passive"? an independent mount can do pretty much whatever it wants to, phb198.

edit: lol very funny, it wasn't clear that you weren't talking about mechanics. On that note though, the moon druid in the mount/rider duo is really the one with the power ;D

[DragonSorcererX]

"passive"? an independent mount can do pretty much whatever it wants to, phb198.

You are too pure to understand it my boy... I'm not talking about the mechanics, I'm talking about the roleplay.

[Corran]

Law?! I AM THE LAW!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueYUwcZV-n0
(I hope it plays)

[jaappleton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueYUwcZV-n0
(I hope it plays)

The fact that this exists is proof that we haven't even scratched the surface of what the hell the internet is capable of...

And stuff like that is the reason Skynet decides mankind doesn't need to exist anymore. :smallbiggrin:

[Daion515]

I'm currently playing a Shepherd. I like and dislike this new iteration.

The hawk was super nerfed in this iteration. It makes the other spirits more attractive than before, I like this, but I do feel that they did hit the hawk too hard. Tbh I'm not sure how to properly balance it. It also seems they're wanting the spirits to provide different types of roles.

The bear giving temp hp and advantage on str checks and throws is not bad. Like the description you get its might and endurance, it's also a sign of protection.

Unicorns are know for powerful healing properties. So the spirit giving the aoe heals like it does makes sense. I feel as though it should do a different check and/or save though.. advantage to detect enemies fits more into the hawk's domain. Con comes to mind since they're about good health and such.

As for the hawk... I'm not sure if it should be a different animal entirely or not. As for its effect, it's clearly meant to be the offensive option. Again I feel it was hit too hard, I also feel like it's being done in a strange way.

What I'd do, is first off move the advantage on checks to detect enemies from Unicorn to the Hawk, it makes more sense here. As for its offensive effect I've had several ideas:

First and foremost I feel it should keep it's nature of being a spirit of hunting, so helping strike true or precise in some way.

- The hawk marks all enemies in its aura - Once per turn the first hit with a weapon attack or ranged weapon attack does and extra 1d6 damage. (This feels maybe too powerful. But also can only happen basically from the martial side of attacks. It's like hunter's mark but only once per turn instead of all attacks.)

- The hawk marks an enemy in its aura - This enemy takes an extra 1d6 damage whenever it's hit with a weapon attack or ranged weapon attack. (This one is especially powerful. I realized that as I typed it out.)

- The hawk marks an enemy in its aura - Once per turn, this enemy takes an extra 1d6 damage whenever it's hit with a weapon attack or ranged weapon attack. This is basically 1 but it's only a single target.

- The hawk imbues its keen sight into allies within its aura - Allies gain a +1 to attacks rolls. (Maybe +1~2 on damage rolls.)(This too is also possibly too strong.)

- The hawk imbues its keen sight into allies within its aura - Once per round when you make an attack roll you can choose to add 1d4 to the roll.

- As a bonus action, the hawk attacks an enemy with its talons every turn for (1d4), or (your wisdom modifier), or (Half druid level) damage. (Super undecided with damage there)

These are some of the ideas I came up with that feel like things that would give incentive to choose the hawk spirit but it not be over and under-shadowed by the rest of the options. But honestly I'm not sure how much of a fan I am of it granting advantage especially at the cost of your reaction.

Lemme know what you think? I'm thinking about actually presenting this to my DM and seeing if it's possible to have my spirits do this.

[DeAnno]

I find it weird people are comparing Cloak of the Flies with maddening Hex, as they really don't serve the same purpose. Cloak of the Flies is something you're going to turn on when you go out to adventure and just wander around with all the time, making sure not to stand next to anyone friendly. There's no reason someone would take the power to just use it once per short rest and then turn it back off.

I'm not saying it's not kind of bad and really awkward, but don't make it out to be something other than what it is.

[ScathachOfSkye]

This UA seems like a mixed bag to me. Some of the subclasses look really good, but others either step on other class features too much or just seem unimaginative. I put everything in spoilers cause it started getting pretty long.

Druids have access to some pretty powerful summon spells already, and this circle makes them even better at that (similar to the necromancy wizard), and I like the spirit totem abilities as well. It seems about the right power level as it is really good at its one thing, but doesn't get bonuses outside of its specialty.
Spirit Totem - Seems pretty good to me, as it provides its own unique ability for area control. However, the unicorn ability seems like it might be too strong by granting healing to everyone you choose in a 30ft radius as a bonus to any healing spell. If the heal only went off once, I would be more okay with it.
Mighty Summoner - Simple, but I think it is a good way to emphasize the summoner abilities of the class.
Guardian Spirit - This ability is probably fine, it is weaker than the unicorn healing and only affects your summons so I think most potential problems with it only happen in relatively limited situations.

Probably the worst of the four subclasses as it doesn't do enough to make it special.
Bonus Proficiency - Fine if a bit boring
Born to the Saddle - A small bonus to riding your mount, but doesn't really justify the focus on it. I would rather that the Cavalier gets a mount or something like the ability to use the Find Steed spell once per day to prevent writing a new ability.
Combat Superiority - Already the Battle Master's thing, I am not particularly fond of just giving a less diverse list to a different class. It makes you seem like a worse version of something else.
Ferocious Charger - Very boring and doubles down on the maneuver focus.
Improved Combat Superiority and Relentless - Continues to simply copy an existing subclass

Improved compared to the previous version, although it is similar in many ways the the Oathbreaker given the focus on fear.
Tenets - I don't think that these are doomed to break apart parties as they do not force you to act as a conqueror towards your friends, you only have to be a jerk towards the things that you are all fighting.
Bonus Spells - I liked that Armor of Agathys was a Warlock exclusive as it gave a unique and powerful buff spell. Plus, it doesn't seem to fit with the Conquest theme other than being a good spell. Spiritual weapon makes some sense, but could be a little too good in some cases.
Channel Divinity - Both options are good and fit with the theme, so I am happy with them.
Aura of Conquest - I like this ability as it gives a unique ability to the subclass and the image of all your enemies around you trembling in fear in your presence really fits with why you would want to choose this Oath. This is the ability that the subclass should be built around and is a massive improvement over the previous version.
Scornful Rebuke - Further builds on the previous ability, as it plays on the same theme and further punishes your foes for fighting you. Fear them (and give disadvantage), prevent them from moving when near you, and to top it off, if they attack you when you are in range of them, they take even more damage.
Invincible Conqueror - The same level 20 supermode that all paladins get in some way, this is probably the least evocative of the options, but mechanically it seems powerful enough.

The cleric of warlocks, a little odd, and needs a few fixes. Plus it does much of what the Undying Warlock does (self preservation) way better than that Patron and gets better abilities for helping its friends as well.
Expanded Spells - All of them seem to fit the subclass
Bonus Cantrips - Gives you some of the options you would want to look like a holy person. Would also be funny if combined with Pact of the Tome to just have a ton of cantrips (you end up with 9 just from this class).
Healing Light - I feel that this might step too much on the toes of paladin and cleric (particularly life cleric) as you get quite a lot of healing from this and your spells combined, while still getting all the of the warlock perks. Plus it seems a lot more powerful than the other patron's level 1 features. So I think it is probably too strong, especially when compared to its closest comparison in the Undying Patron.
Radiant Soul - I understand limiting it to only one addition per spell cast, but limiting it to just one target makes it much weaker than either the sorcerer or wizard version of this ability.
Celestial Resilience - Once again, way better than what the Undying Warlock gets, this gives you and your party a sizable boost to their health pool each rest. Similar amount of health for yourself as the Undying capstone, but with the added bonus of helping your friends as well. The only downside is that it is temp hp, so it doesn't stack with armor of agathys.
Searing Vengeance - An improved version of the of the Undying Warlock's Defy Death (although it does come later), but this only further crushes an existing Patron, and is probably too powerful due to the amount of bonuses it provides in addition to bringing you back from unconsciousness.

Overall, I have mixed feelings about removing the patron connections from these invocations. On one hand, it allows for more customization, and on the other hand I can't help but feel that some of the options don't seem to fit all patrons (why can people who don't know the fireball spell learn Kiss of Mephistopheles?) and they helped add to the decision of what patron to choose.
Aspect of the Moon - Interesting ability, but seems odd to connect it to the Pact of the Tome.
Cloak of Flies - Probably on the weak end if only because you can't use it that often unless you just leave it on all day. I mean at that point either give it more uses and give it a duration or just make in unlimited.
Eldritch Smite - I love that they freed this from being tied to specific weapons, however, I don't like that it is another invocation tax for blade pact and that it competes for the level 5 invocation with thirsting blade. So one of them you will have to wait until level 7 to get. I also think that it might be too weak, even if it scales the same as paladins, because warlocks actually have fewer individual slots than paladins, meaning the extra 1d8 always added is much bigger for paladin. The prone effect is nice, but I would rather it deal a little bit better damage (maybe not the 10d8 from before but I think that there can be a middle ground).
Frost Lance - At a good power level and makes sense to be usable by most warlocks.
Ghostly Gaze - I still love this ability as I did the first time it showed up.
Gift of the Depths - Pretty good, but nothing special
Gift of the Ever-Living Ones - Odd name for a familiar related ability, but it does provide another reason to pick chain pact. Could be pretty crazy on a Celestial Warlock.
Grasp of Hadar - Seems odd that it is more limited than Repelling Blast given that most warlocks would rather push people away from them anyways.
Improved Pact Weapon - I kinda miss the better versions of this, but now that you don't need specific weapons for the smite, you would probably just switch out of all of them anyways once you found a good magic weapon.
Kiss of Mephistopheles - Strange that warlocks who don't know fireball can still cast it with this invocation, and it is powerful, but with a relevant downside. Power wise, I think that it is fine, but it is the one Invocation that I think most needs to be tied to a specific pact.
Maddening Hex - I like the ability, but when printed the effects it works with need to be spelled out more clearly as it is currently too open ended (what exactly counts as cursed by my class feature count as?).
Relentless Hex - Same as above, except I love the added ability to chase people as a bladelock.
Shroud of Shadow - Makes sense to open this one up to all patrons and I love the ability.
Tomb of Levistus - I still feel that it could be too weak, if only because the number of downsides it gives doesn't outweigh the health gained from the feature.
Trickster's Escape - A fun little get out of jail free card.

Overall, I think that the Shepard and Oath of Conquest are close to completion, but Celestial Warlock and Cavalier need either a lot of work or to be scrapped. The Invocation changes are mostly improvements, but many still need work.

[SharkForce]

Eh, you could argue most of that into a Lawful Neutral, emphasis on LAW! A Judge Dredd type, if you will.

And, it states that the Hell Knights are most vemently opposed by other knights of Conquest. The Hell knights take it too far, and the rest stop them from giving the Oath a bad name.

Douse the Flame of Hope
Rule with an Iron Fist
Strength above All

Granted, not the friendliest of oaths, but it doesn't necessarily have to be straight up evil.
(Not trying to start an alignment battle)

Personally, I really like this Oath, and could be great for more monsterous PCs and NPCs (from hobgoblins to orcs to Goliaths)

yeah, let's stop and think about this. a devil is willing to accept your oath to uphold these tenets as being an oath to serve that devil. these tenets are prone to leading you to go too far into evil. hmmmm... i wonder if this oath might be evil? nah, archdevils are probably totally ok with oaths that allow people to not be evil, right? i mean, it's not like they are specifically concerned with the business of corrupting souls or anything... oh wait, they are? well, guess that might explain it.

and not, it doesn't say that you can just be cool with your friends. you don't have to crush their hopes and dreams (the only tenet that mentions enemies), but you *do* have to try to take over the group until you succeed (third tenet), and anyone who disagrees with anything you say at all has to be punished and made an example of (second tenet). they are not kind to their friends but terrifying to their enemies, they are horrible people who believe that the strongest person has the right to rule, and the slightest insubordination means you must be made an example of. if they violate those tenets, they become oathbreakers.

i'd ask if it needs to be written on their body in fiery letters, but for many of them, it is literally written on their body in fiery letters, so apparently that still isn't enough.

this is not something that can reasonably be played in a typical party. making this AL-approved where it will be played in PUGs is a catastrophe waiting to happen. frankly, there's not a chance i'd let something like this be played in a group of my friends, because unless everyone is on-board with this (with constant power struggles and PvP), it is going to end poorly even for a group of friends unless you literally ignore their oaths, and i find it quite improbable that everyone in a group is actually going to be on board with the idea that one guy is going to be absolute dictator and everyone else does what they say or their characters will face punishment. certainly, i have never met a group where i would feel comfortable trying to act like that. in fact, i don't think i've ever played in a group where acting like that wouldn't get you thrown out (and you would deserve it).

[rbstr]

Yeah it's an "Invocation Tax" but it's also a powerful feature. What, are you supposed to get it for free?
The concept that the bladelock's desire for several invocations is somehow unfair or bad just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For example, other casters usually give up their entire level 6 archetype feature for extra attack. Spending an Invocation is a smaller price.
Similarly, the Improved Pact Weapon is basically a Better Fighting Style and Smiting is a big important Paladin feature.

4 invocations out of 8 (adding Lifedrinker) is a really good deal for all the weapon-swinging power you get to tack on a full caster.

[Tetrasodium]

yeah, let's stop and think about this. a devil is willing to accept your oath to uphold these tenets as being an oath to serve that devil. these tenets are prone to leading you to go too far into evil. hmmmm... i wonder if this oath might be evil? nah, archdevils are probably totally ok with oaths that allow people to not be evil, right? i mean, it's not like they are specifically concerned with the business of corrupting souls or anything... oh wait, they are? well, guess that might explain it.

and not, it doesn't say that you can just be cool with your friends. you don't have to crush their hopes and dreams (the only tenet that mentions enemies), but you *do* have to try to take over the group until you succeed (third tenet), and anyone who disagrees with anything you say at all has to be punished and made an example of (second tenet). they are not kind to their friends but terrifying to their enemies, they are horrible people who believe that the strongest person has the right to rule, and the slightest insubordination means you must be made an example of. if they violate those tenets, they become oathbreakers.

i'd ask if it needs to be written on their body in fiery letters, but for many of them, it is literally written on their body in fiery letters, so apparently that still isn't enough.

this is not something that can reasonably be played in a typical party. making this AL-approved where it will be played in PUGs is a catastrophe waiting to happen. frankly, there's not a chance i'd let something like this be played in a group of my friends, because unless everyone is on-board with this (with constant power struggles and PvP), it is going to end poorly even for a group of friends unless you literally ignore their oaths, and i find it quite improbable that everyone in a group is actually going to be on board with the idea that one guy is going to be absolute dictator and everyone else does what they say or their characters will face punishment. certainly, i have never met a group where i would feel comfortable trying to act like that. in fact, i don't think i've ever played in a group where acting like that wouldn't get you thrown out (and you would deserve it).

You are confusing chaotic devils with lawful demons. It's simply a murderhobo that bakes in standing against chaos & imposing/spreading lawfulness rather than some attempt to pretend that good & evil are black & white concepts. It's the difference between mercenaries who fight to protect a nation against destabilizing forces & a pack of religious zealots who fight to spread their faith while undermining the stability of society.

As to why LE devils would give power to a paladin, even a LG paladin... The stability of law rules over the tumult & turbulence of chaos. "Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will." good & evil are a different & unrelated spectrum from law & chaos. Change your perspective (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality)

[Corran]

and not, it doesn't say that you can just be cool with your friends. you don't have to crush their hopes and dreams (the only tenet that mentions enemies), but you *do* have to try to take over the group until you succeed (third tenet), and anyone who disagrees with anything you say at all has to be punished and made an example of (second tenet). they are not kind to their friends but terrifying to their enemies, they are horrible people who believe that the strongest person has the right to rule, and the slightest insubordination means you must be made an example of. if they violate those tenets, they become oathbreakers.
So, he is the guy that will shut down murderhoboism, eradicate intrapart conflict as he will make the other PC's his goons/ generals/ advisors, depending on PCs' status in the campaign world, and who will subjugate/ genocide the entire gnome population (kinda made that last one up). So.... what's the problem?


frankly, there's not a chance i'd let something like this be played in a group of my friends, because unless everyone is on-board with this (with constant power struggles and PvP), it is going to end poorly even for a group of friends unless you literally ignore their oaths, and i find it quite improbable that everyone in a group is actually going to be on board with the idea that one guy is going to be absolute dictator and everyone else does what they say or their characters will face punishment. certainly, i have never met a group where i would feel comfortable trying to act like that. in fact, i don't think i've ever played in a group where acting like that wouldn't get you thrown out (and you would deserve it).
Emphasis mine. Isn't that anyway the case for every character? From the lawful good paladin all the way down to the greedy rogue? Sure, this character demands buy in from the rest of the group to be played properly, but that would go for most characters out there, no matter their class. IMO lawful evil is the alignment that identifies the most with this oath, and that's not normally an alignment that ruins the game, at leat ime. Also, paladins have a leadership kind of role inherited to them, so I cant see how that's all that different from when someone wants to play the lawful good paly. I mean, I could see the problem when one guy wants to play a paladin of this oath, and another guy wants to play the chaotic/ rebel character, but is that any different when one player wants to play the lawful good paladin and another player wants to play a thief? And besides, if the players want to make it work, it will work. But it's not any different to conflicting character concepts already in place.

[Malifice]

As I said on Reddit, I don't like cavalier. In addition to just not liking a mount focused archetype that can really limit your options in game (indoor horses man), it also basically requires you to take the trip attack maneuver to access a later feature.

I do like the new warding maneuver, but it doesn't help make this subclass that interesting. It's basically a battlemaster that needs a mount to be at their best.

It's not a mount focussed archetype. None of its core features have anything to do with a horse, barring a ribbon ability.

[Malifice]

Eldritch Smite is considerably weaker than Curse Bringer (from Hexblade).

Curse Bringer is 2d8 per spell level and isn't limited to once per turn.

The impession I get is that Eldritch Smite is supposed to replace Curse Bringer damage.

Sort of a unified smite mechanic for bladelocks.

[SharkForce]

You are confusing chaotic devils with lawful demons. It's simply a murderhobo that bakes in standing against chaos & imposing/spreading lawfulness rather than some attempt to pretend that good & evil are black & white concepts. It's the difference between mercenaries who fight to protect a nation against destabilizing forces & a pack of religious zealots who fight to spread their faith while undermining the stability of society.

As to why LE devils would give power to a paladin, even a LG paladin... The stability of law rules over the tumult & turbulence of chaos. "Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will." good & evil are a different & unrelated spectrum from law & chaos. Change your perspective (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality)

i'm not confusing devils and demons. the tenets literally say that the strongest person has the right to rule, and if that isn't you, then it's your job to improve yourself constantly and keep trying to take control until it *is* you, and that anyone who doesn't do what you want must be punished. not could be punished, not might be punished, but must be punished, harshly, to make an example out of them, in an effort to ensure that nobody else will stand against your rule. yes, it's very lawful. it is also incredibly corrupting and evil.


So, he is the guy that will shut down murderhoboism, eradicate intrapart conflict as he will make the other PC's his goons/ generals/ advisors, depending on PCs' status in the campaign world, and who will subjugate/ genocide the entire gnome population (kinda made that last one up). So.... what's the problem?


Emphasis mine. Isn't that anyway the case for every character? From the lawful good paladin all the way down to the greedy rogue? Sure, this character demands buy in from the rest of the group to be played properly, but that would go for most characters out there, no matter their class. IMO lawful evil is the alignment that identifies the most with this oath, and that's not normally an alignment that ruins the game, at leat ime. Also, paladins have a leadership kind of role inherited to them, so I cant see how that's all that different from when someone wants to play the lawful good paly. I mean, I could see the problem when one guy wants to play a paladin of this oath, and another guy wants to play the chaotic/ rebel character, but is that any different when one player wants to play the lawful good paladin and another player wants to play a thief? And besides, if the players want to make it work, it will work. But it's not any different to conflicting character concepts already in place.

it doesn't say you get to have advisors that can disagree with you. it says that either you are the absolute dictator, or that you must do everything in your power to take over and become the absolute dictator, and anyone who doesn't do what you want needs to be punished. the greedy rogue isn't constantly compelled to try and force everyone else's characters to do what the greedy rogue wants. it is disruptive on a whole new level. it changes the dynamic from "i decide what i'm going to do and you decide what you're going to do and sometimes we might disagree" to "i'm going to decide what everyone does, and if you don't do it then i am going to punish you". the former can be sometimes a bit disruptive, the latter largely means that one person gets to decide everything and nobody else's input matters, and if you act like that with your friends then frankly i'm surprised you *have* any friends.

there absolutely is a difference. a lawful good paladin might try to influence the behaviour of the party in a positive way, but it is not a requirement for that lawful good paladin to force everyone else to submit. a paladin of devotion is not obligated to force others to follow the devotion tenets, only themselves. that is a world of difference. it is optional to be a complete and utter jerk when roleplaying a paladin of devotion. it is not optional if you are playing a paladin of conquest.

[Malifice]

The most you can do with the smite now is 2d6+Str+6d8+Cha and 2d6+Str+Cha once per round, sacrificing spell slots vs. 1d10+cha*4 per round without sacrificing spell slots.

66 Average damage slashing (greatsword, lifedrinker and thirsting blade, no magic weapon 20 Str and 20 Cha) at the cost of a spell slot vs. 44 Average damage force (20 Cha) without a spell slot.
Not much of a damage spike, when compared to the smite spells that Hexblades already get.

Why isnt the Hexblade packing a magic weapon? He gets an invocation for it.

Also dont forget to factor in advantage (for prone) on attack 2 (and the damage buff this provides to other melee members of your party till the critter stands up).

Melee guy is also not dealing with cover. Our ranged 'lock could get spell sniper, but I'll see that feat and raise it with GWM.

Also, in a campaign featuring magic weapons (i.e: most of them, probably including yours) even more points to the bladelock.


Plus you can still quicken EB if you go sorcerer and want to have a nova feel to things.

Not on the default 6-8 encounter adventuring day you cant (at least until very high level, usually post where most games stop).

[alchahest]

i'm not confusing devils and demons. the tenets literally say that the strongest person has the right to rule, and if that isn't you, then it's your job to improve yourself constantly and keep trying to take control until it *is* you, and that anyone who doesn't do what you want must be punished. not could be punished, not might be punished, but must be punished, harshly, to make an example out of them, in an effort to ensure that nobody else will stand against your rule. yes, it's very lawful. it is also incredibly corrupting and evil.



it doesn't say you get to have advisors that can disagree with you. it says that either you are the absolute dictator, or that you must do everything in your power to take over and become the absolute dictator, and anyone who doesn't do what you want needs to be punished. the greedy rogue isn't constantly compelled to try and force everyone else's characters to do what the greedy rogue wants. it is disruptive on a whole new level. it changes the dynamic from "i decide what i'm going to do and you decide what you're going to do and sometimes we might disagree" to "i'm going to decide what everyone does, and if you don't do it then i am going to punish you". the former can be sometimes a bit disruptive, the latter largely means that one person gets to decide everything and nobody else's input matters, and if you act like that with your friends then frankly i'm surprised you *have* any friends.

there absolutely is a difference. a lawful good paladin might try to influence the behaviour of the party in a positive way, but it is not a requirement for that lawful good paladin to force everyone else to submit. a paladin of devotion is not obligated to force others to follow the devotion tenets, only themselves. that is a world of difference. it is optional to be a complete and utter jerk when roleplaying a paladin of devotion. it is not optional if you are playing a paladin of conquest.

And if you're playing a paladin of vengeance, you must never stop pursuing evil, even to save orphans, even to save your own mother - nothing else matters compared to beating evil, and you are permitted, nay, encouraged, to use any means necessary. absolutely nothing in the vengeance tenets say you have to minimise collateral damage, or that it's not allowed to actively kill civilians to hamper your evil target. If the exact words of the tenets are the only room you have for role playing, then I don't know how vengeance paladins remain good. They should be seeking every possible method of killing their evil target including selling their own souls for more power, tofight that evil. If a vengeance paladin is trying to kill Asmodeus, his very tenets say nothing is off the table to achieve that, including, say, selling your soul to Orcus. I don't know why it's so hard to see the possibilities in the Paladin of Conquest besides lawfully stupid evil.

[Malifice]

Eldritch Smite - I love that they freed this from being tied to specific weapons, however, I don't like that it is another invocation tax for blade pact and that it competes for the level 5 invocation with thirsting blade. So one of them you will have to wait until level 7 to get.

You get to exchange an invocation when you advance in level.

So you hit 5th level, pick up Thirsting blade as your 3rd invocation, and swap out (xxx) for Eldritch smite.


I also think that it might be too weak, even if it scales the same as paladins, because warlocks actually have fewer individual slots than paladins, meaning the extra 1d8 always added is much bigger for paladin.

Forgetting the fact that Warlock spell slots increase in level at a faster rate than Paladins.

When the 'lock gets access to eldritch smites, he's already spamming +4d8 smites. A paladin has to wait till 9th level for +4d8 damage smites, and by then the 'lock is spamming +6d8 damage smites.

The Paladin has to wait till 17th level for +6d8 damage smites (and even then he only gets 1/long rest). By which time the 'lock has [4 x +6d8 damage smites], that refresh every short rest.

Your 'standard' adventuring day features 2-3 short rests (yours might not, but take that up with your DM). Thats (3-4) times the warlock is refreshing his pact magic slots.

The paladin makes up for this by having his 'lesser' slots to smite with as well, but on the downside, he needs to ration those slots over a 6-8 encounter adventuring day (which is the default length day, regardless of if your campaign uses it or not).

I would say its pretty even, with each 'smite' having its own pros and cons.The 'knock them prone' is just gravy (smite on the first attack, auto knock prone, and then advantage on the rest).

[Malifice]

If the exact words of the tenets are the only room you have for role playing, then I don't know how vengeance paladins remain good.

Venangance Paladins would seriously struggle to be good aligned. The tenents actively green light torture, merciless slaughter and genocide if taken to extremes.

The game recommends LN for an alignment for them. The more vindictive 'Punisher' types, would be almost certainly LE.

[alchahest]

That's sort of my point though, a strict reading of the tenets doesn't leave room for anything but the ultra violent punisher types - there's an explicit callout stating they go to any means necessary, and, and that they're willing to sacrifice their own righteousness. I don't think vengeance paladins have to be evil any more than conquest paladins have to, though both types may also be used by evil forces.

And I guess really the playtest is for the mechanical aspects anyways - Much like literally everything else in the game, your mileage on the fluff will vary based on you and your DM.

[MasterMercury]

And if you're playing a paladin of vengeance, you must never stop pursuing evil, even to save orphans, even to save your own mother - nothing else matters compared to beating evil, and you are permitted, nay, encouraged, to use any means necessary. absolutely nothing in the vengeance tenets say you have to minimise collateral damage, or that it's not allowed to actively kill civilians to hamper your evil target. If the exact words of the tenets are the only room you have for role playing, then I don't know how vengeance paladins remain good. They should be seeking every possible method of killing their evil target including selling their own souls for more power, tofight that evil. If a vengeance paladin is trying to kill Asmodeus, his very tenets say nothing is off the table to achieve that, including, say, selling your soul to Orcus. I don't know why it's so hard to see the possibilities in the Paladin of Conquest besides lawfully stupid evil.

This. I really don't know why everyone takes all the paladin oaths so seriously. Honestly, if you take any oath to the extremes, you'll have problems.

Oath of Devotion goes to the classic Lawful Stupid Good; smite and ask questions later

Oath of the Ancients goes to the ancient Hippie who won't kill anything, but this is probably the best oath.

Oath of vengeance: see above.

Oath of conquest: could be a stupid muscle-bound, iron-fisted, manipulating brute.

Or a stern commanding general, like Stannis Baratheon from Game of Thrones. Or a devoted, no nonsense warrior of peace, a Judge Dredd. Or maybe just someone biding their time.

The first tenet only speaks of enemies.

The second states "once you have conquered", so it could also only apply to enemies. It clearly is about you leading a nation, not a small group of equals.

The third, "Only the strongest may rule", probably isn't about literal strength, otherwise Barbarians would be in charge. The paladin is often the leader, and if not, there is nothing wrong with an inter-party conflict for leadership.

As for the Devil thing, that's just someone who took it to far, for inspirations for DMs. That bit clearly states that other Oath of Conquest Paladins are "most fiercely resisted by other paladins of this oath, who believe that the hell knights have wandered too far into darkness."
So clearly being lawful Evil with a capital E! is not the desired end goal.

[Malifice]

I think the thing it's missing most is a maneuver that lets it act on the mount's initiative and/or the mount to act on it's initiative. If that seems illogical, look at controlling a mount on PHB198 & the second paragraph of mounted combat on that same page to see just how broad the classification of what can ridden as a mount.

Controlled mounts do act on your initiative. They can only take the dodge, disengage and dash action though.

Your horsey dashes, and you move 120' then you attack. Or it disengages, moves 60' through a horde of enemies to get to your target, then you take the attack action.


the standard mounts are pretty papery yes

Mounted combat feat means they cant be targetted anymore. Without it, they can just dodge each round they arent disengaging or dashing.


but in order for something to be a mount.. it only needs to be one size or more & have an "appropriate" anatomy. moon druids are amazingly difficult to kill mounts & no slouch on their own when it comes to eating stuff.

Intelligent mounts are 'uncontrolled' and annoying as hell to use. You have to use the 'ready' action while you wait for them to have their turn and take you where you need t go, and (as a fighter) this sucks because you can only ready 1 attack, and (as a caster) this sucks because readying a spell uses concentration.

They can always also decide to leave the fight, fight someone else, or do whatever the DM wants them to do.

If you're riding your party Druid, then this means you both need to work together well, and (s)he is prepared to take you into melee with the guy you want to fight (I can see a lot of arguments between players here). Even then, you still have the problem that you have to use the 'ready' action all the time (missing a lot of attacks and constantly mucking about waiting for your Druid mount to take you where you want to go).

[SharkForce]

And if you're playing a paladin of vengeance, you must never stop pursuing evil, even to save orphans, even to save your own mother - nothing else matters compared to beating evil, and you are permitted, nay, encouraged, to use any means necessary. absolutely nothing in the vengeance tenets say you have to minimise collateral damage, or that it's not allowed to actively kill civilians to hamper your evil target. If the exact words of the tenets are the only room you have for role playing, then I don't know how vengeance paladins remain good. They should be seeking every possible method of killing their evil target including selling their own souls for more power, tofight that evil. If a vengeance paladin is trying to kill Asmodeus, his very tenets say nothing is off the table to achieve that, including, say, selling your soul to Orcus. I don't know why it's so hard to see the possibilities in the Paladin of Conquest besides lawfully stupid evil.

there's an important difference between "the oath doesn't say you aren't allowed to be a jerk" and "the oath says you aren't allowed to *not* be a jerk". if the oath doesn't specify, nothing is forcing you one way or the other. it could be a problem, but that's player choice. if the oath specifies that you must try to take over the group you're in and that you must punish people who disobey your orders once you do, then you must do that to fulfill your oath. and that is the difference. the paladin of conquest is forced to try to take over the group and make decisions for everyone. the paladin of vengeance is forced to make certain decisions for themselves. now, the vengeance paladin player could choose to be a jerk and try to force the party to do things. but it isn't required.

(also, not only does the vengeance oath not say you must minimize collateral damage, it actually forbids that if it would interfere with hunting your sworn foe). and yes, an oath of vengeance paladin should be willing to do pretty much anything, including selling their soul, if they think that will help them kill their evil target. if they aren't, then they are in violation of their oath. and should probably struggle with staying a good person as a result. in fact, the subclass actually states the paladin must be willing to sacrifice even their own righteousness if necessary, and as noted indicates that a vengeance paladin is not likely to be good aligned (or if they are, they aren't likely to stay good aligned for long i would imagine). i would expect most good-aligned characters who make an oath to become a paladin probably wind up not being vengeance paladins, because the vengeance oath isn't particularly compatible with a good alignment for the most part.

incidentally, you must have a different version of vengeance paladins than i do, because mine says you are also supposed to help those who are harmed by evil creature. it is actually a part of the oath.

[Malifice]

That's sort of my point though, a strict reading of the tenets doesn't leave room for anything but the ultra violent punisher types - there's an explicit callout stating they go to any means necessary, and, and that they're willing to sacrifice their own righteousness.

The vengance paladin traces it roots through the 4E Avenger and the BECMI Avenger (OD+Ds Antipaladin).


I don't think vengeance paladins have to be evil any more than conquest paladins have to, though both types may also be used by evil forces.

A Vengance Paladin would struggle to maintain a Good alignment without breaking his oaths (and vice versa) IMO. A Conquest paladin would struggle to maintain a non-Lawful and non-Evil alignment without breaking his.

Im not saying its not possible, and I agree there is a fair bit of wriggle room for interpretation and subjectivity and context (and all that other postmodern stuff) but the flavor of both and the wording of the tenents is pretty clearly 'not good guys'.

My own Vengance Paladin is LE, a Banite and a member of the Zhentarim. His interpretation of 'the Greater Evil' he is sworn to stop is 'the (LG) church of Torm and its deluded followers'.

Interpretation is important, but Im struggling to see how a Conquest Paladin could wriggle out of being a tyrannical prick.

[Corran]

it doesn't say you get to have advisors that can disagree with you. it says that either you are the absolute dictator, or that you must do everything in your power to take over and become the absolute dictator, and anyone who doesn't do what you want needs to be punished.
Now, that seems more like a robot than a human being.
Imo the tenets portray a person who cannot stand being openly challenged. That does not mean that such a person wont stand hearing objections, so long that they come from someone who has this paladin's interests at heart. Obviously, the manner by which such objections are noted will have to be worded carefully (with tact), in a way so that the conquest paly wont take them as provocations. He might as well give in to these objections, of they trust the person objecting enough. Doesnt mean you have to do always what you want without listening to anyone. That's the stupid approach, but not the only one. Furthermore, it is only natural to be exceptions too, as far as punishing those who go against your command. Such as relatives or loved ones. The conquest paly might not go as hard on a handful of people who disobey him, because these people are very dear to him (enter bond, personality trait, whatever). If a conquest paly made an exception for say, his annoying little brother (another PC) who always goes against the conquest paly's commands, and said conquest paly did not punish his broher, but apart from that little indiscretion, he fullfilled every letter of the tenets as far as every other being is concenred, would you have that paladin break his oath?
It is important to keep in mind that these fictional characters are supposed to be human beings, and as such, their behaviour can break the pattern when factors like family and love come into consideration. If you behave 99% like your tenets suggest, but break the tenets in 1% of occassions like the aforementioned ones, doesnt mean that your character is an oathbreaker, it just means he is human.
Edit: Besides, your powers come from your convictions, and you can stay true to your convictions even if there are exceptions. What you dont have to do however, is play a robot with 100% consistent behaviour no matter of how external factors might cause of a situational break of that pattern.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one, but I dont see conquest paladins present such a huge obstacle to teamplay. All it demands is buy in from everyone (a unifying goal also helps too), and this is the case for a ton of character concepts.

[alchahest]

I think you only need to look at Daredevil, Batman, or Judge Dredd (Daredevil in particular) to see this - all of them believe themselves to be worthy of conquering evil, all of them believe they are uniquely empowered to do so, and all of them work with other people towards common goals. And all of them use their complete and total confidence in their abilities to instill terror into their enemies. Yet they're capable of being complete, flawed human beings as well. And having complex, rich relationships with the people in their lives (even Dredd). And yet ask a criminal in their sphere of influence and they'll speak in hushed tones like there's some kind of monster out there.

[SharkForce]

This. I really don't know why everyone takes all the paladin oaths so seriously. Honestly, if you take any oath to the extremes, you'll have problems.

Oath of Devotion goes to the classic Lawful Stupid Good; smite and ask questions later

Oath of the Ancients goes to the ancient Hippie who won't kill anything, but this is probably the best oath.

Oath of vengeance: see above.

Oath of conquest: could be a stupid muscle-bound, iron-fisted, manipulating brute.

Or a stern commanding general, like Stannis Baratheon from Game of Thrones. Or a devoted, no nonsense warrior of peace, a Judge Dredd. Or maybe just someone biding their time.

The first tenet only speaks of enemies.

The second states "once you have conquered", so it could also only apply to enemies. It clearly is about you leading a nation, not a small group of equals.

The third, "Only the strongest may rule", probably isn't about literal strength, otherwise Barbarians would be in charge. The paladin is often the leader, and if not, there is nothing wrong with an inter-party conflict for leadership.

As for the Devil thing, that's just someone who took it to far, for inspirations for DMs. That bit clearly states that other Oath of Conquest Paladins are "most fiercely resisted by other paladins of this oath, who believe that the hell knights have wandered too far into darkness."
So clearly being lawful Evil with a capital E! is not the desired end goal.

did you actually read the other oaths?

devotion doesn't say you should smite first and ask questions later. it actually says you should even show mercy to your enemies, though tempered with wisdom. it talks about honesty, fairness, helping others, taking responsibility for your actions, and not letting yourself be governed by fear, and also protecting the weak. only one of the 5 tenets even mentions the paladin having an oath to punish anyone that might be interpreted as a commandment to smite anything, and within that same tenet is that part about showing mercy even to your enemies where possible.

the oath of the ancients doesn't say you shouldn't kill anyone, and in fact explicitly requires that you protect light and life from darkness and despair that threatens it, which most probably will involve killing things from time to time.

the oath of vengeance i've covered in a previous oath. if you are good aligned, you are most probably not living up to your oath. if you are not willing to compromise your morals to accomplish your goal, then you have definitely broken your oath, and there are far too many ways to compromise your morals that will help you in fulfilling your oath for me to believe it's just never come up for anyone who's been a paladin of vengeance for a remotely long period of time.

and as i've covered with conquest, the second and third tenets mean that they must constantly struggle for leadership, and that once they have it they are to rule with no mercy or forgiveness. and let's pause for a moment to examine the statement that other conquest paladins think the hell knights have gone too far into darkness, because that implies that they think it's perfectly fine to be evil, as long as you're not going *too* far into evil. yes, the first tenet applies only to their enemy. the second and third have no such restrictions, nor do they say they do not apply if you happen to be in an adventuring party.

[Tectorman]

I'm a little concerned by the Oath of Conquest getting a revision. Not because I'm specifically against it on either a game-mechanic or a conceptual level, but because I really need the Oath of Treachery to make it all the way through to being printed. Why? Because he had no tenets of any kind, not even any requiring him to be evil or treacherous, so he could actually be a swell and decent upstanding citizen. The OoT Paladin was my one hope to finally look forward to playing a Paladin past second level without the looming and oppressive sword of Damocles that is the tenets making the whole affair stressful.

The not-Oath of Treachery getting a revision instead is somewhat discouraging. Maybe the first version was good enough. Maybe they also revised it but didn't feel the necessity of getting feedback on the revision (and more to the point, hopefully the revision if it exists retains the complete lack of tenets that made the OoT the only Paladin worth considering IMO). But then there's the possibility that it got scrapped, and I absolutely hate that that could be the case. Players can enjoy all the other classes, even up to high levels, without having to worry about getting a forced class-change or archetype revision or multiclass due to mechanically enforced fluff. There should be at least one Paladin Oath out there to let players enjoy that class, too. That that might end up not being the case, as potentially evidenced by the OoT not getting a revision to demonstrate that it indeed hasn't been cast to the wayside, is worrisome indeed.

[SharkForce]

I think you only need to look at Daredevil, Batman, or Judge Dredd (Daredevil in particular) to see this - all of them believe themselves to be worthy of conquering evil, all of them believe they are uniquely empowered to do so, and all of them work with other people towards common goals. And all of them use their complete and total confidence in their abilities to instill terror into their enemies. Yet they're capable of being complete, flawed human beings as well. And having complex, rich relationships with the people in their lives (even Dredd). And yet ask a criminal in their sphere of influence and they'll speak in hushed tones like there's some kind of monster out there.

none of them have "rule with an iron fist" or "strength above all" as core beliefs. yes, they use fear. no, they are not good examples of paladins of conquest.

[Corran]

I'm a little concerned by the Oath of Conquest getting a revision. Not because I'm specifically against it on either a game-mechanic or a conceptual level, but because I really need the Oath of Treachery to make it all the way through to being printed. Why? Because he had no tenets of any kind, not even any requiring him to be evil or treacherous, so he could actually be a swell and decent upstanding citizen. The OoT Paladin was my one hope to finally look forward to playing a Paladin past second level without the looming and oppressive sword of Damocles that is the tenets making the whole affair stressful.
Lol, this is brilliant!

[Mortis_Elrod]

The vengance paladin traces it roots through the 4E Avenger and the BECMI Avenger (OD+Ds Antipaladin).



A Vengance Paladin would struggle to maintain a Good alignment without breaking his oaths (and vice versa) IMO. A Conquest paladin would struggle to maintain a non-Lawful and non-Evil alignment without breaking his.

Im not saying its not possible, and I agree there is a fair bit of wriggle room for interpretation and subjectivity and context (and all that other postmodern stuff) but the flavor of both and the wording of the tenents is pretty clearly 'not good guys'.

My own Vengance Paladin is LE, a Banite and a member of the Zhentarim. His interpretation of 'the Greater Evil' he is sworn to stop is 'the (LG) church of Torm and its deluded followers'.

Interpretation is important, but Im struggling to see how a Conquest Paladin could wriggle out of being a tyrannical prick.

have you ever read Ender's Game? If not is a good read and i highly recommend it (don't watch the movie its not very good, mainly because of pacing).

But the main character, Ender is a very nice and good guy. But he's also very smart and very practical. Because of this when he encounters a few situations, he pretty much follows the tenets here. He faces off with a bully, and he takes him out. Not just knock this kid on the ground, he makes it impossible for the guy to ever do anything to threaten him again. Because if he doesn't he will eventually come back as an enemy, and its better to leave no enemies capable of recovering and coming back when you least expect it. Later on he, being the smartest and more capable of his team, becomes captain, and shows favor to those who follow his lead. Those who don't are not on his team at all. Exile is a form of punishment, and in a lot of societies its worse than death. He also never loses. Not once. He believes there is no other option but to win, he is put in situations that are supposed to be unwinnable but he does it anyway. He has a person that is almost a capable as him but isn't quite there, so he continues to win and win because in his world there is nothing else but victory and anything short is not a solution. That's Strength above all.


But if it helps use different names for these tenets. Because there is more than one way to do things.

Douse the Flame of Hope > No Rematches.
Rule with an Iron Fist > Uphold Order, Cast out rebellion
Strength above all > You're either First or Last.

[Malifice]

I think you only need to look at Daredevil, Batman, or Judge Dredd (Daredevil in particular) to see this - all of them believe themselves to be worthy of conquering evil, all of them believe they are uniquely empowered to do so, and all of them work with other people towards common goals.

Most of those three are terrible at working with other people. When compared to normal everyday people as a baseline.

Murdock drives his best friend and lovers away from him in his quest for justice (and drives his Legal practice into the ground). Dredd is in no way good at playing with others (and doesnt have anything even resembling anything in the way of friends or a private life) and Bruce Wayne is perpetualy isolated as well, allowing no-one to get close to him.

All three are loners. In fact, they all demonstrate pretty serious personality disorders.

All three have different alignments as well. Dredd is LN (with evil tendencies due to upholding the laws of a dystopian totalitarian regime). Batman (and Daredevil) is clearly Good aligned (he avoids or expressly repudiates killing, torture, rape, exessive violence and harming others) with a strong lawful bent.

Daredevil is much more OK with using standover tactics (intimidation, beating up a defenceless opponent till he tells him what he wants) than the Batman, but broadly speaking the two are very similar in alignment and outlook.

Improtantly both Wayne and Murdock repudiate and revile Frank Castle (textbook 'LE Vengance' trope) for his (evil) methods in combatting evil (perhaps as both Batman and Daredevil see in the Punisher a monster that they themselves could have become).

[alchahest]

none of them have "rule with an iron fist" or "strength above all" as core beliefs. yes, they use fear. no, they are not good examples of paladins of conquest.

Batman: Believes he's the only one trustworthy enough to have the means to kill any member of the justice league. just in case they go bad.

Daredevil: Shadowland. literally takes control of The Hand to impose his rule.

Dredd: besides being judge, jury, and executioner with regards to his foil, he also led a rebellion when he wasn't satisfied with the leadership of mega-city one.

All three have exhibited megalomania in the pursuit of conquering their foes. But I'm just picking out examples from things I enjoy - I'm certain there are more out there. Someone mentioned Stannis, and I think that's a great example.

And of course, the tenets are a role playing construct rather than a mechanical one - if it's not satisfying for you and your DM, change it. Fluff aspects of character classes should really be used to inspire, rather than limit. If you like the mechanics of a class or subclass and something doesn't feel right about the fluff, alter it. I'm not saying you should have an oath-less paladin of conquest, but if you want to change the oath and adhere to something different, go for it. work it out with your DM. Or, if you are the DM, ask your player why it is they want to use that set of mechanics, and what kind of changes they'd like to make to the fluff. D&D is collaborative storytelling and if you don't have investment from all parties then someone's going to have a bad time.

It'd be like reading that monks have a connection to a monastery (see the monk entry in PHB) and assuming that it's impossible to make a non-monastic martial artist using the class.

[Malifice]

have you ever read Ender's Game? If not is a good read and i highly recommend it (don't watch the movie its not very good, mainly because of pacing).

But the main character, Ender is a very nice and good guy. But he's also very smart and very practical. Because of this when he encounters a few situations, he pretty much follows the tenets here. He faces off with a bully, and he takes him out. Not just knock this kid on the ground, he makes it impossible for the guy to ever do anything to threaten him again. Because if he doesn't he will eventually come back as an enemy, and its better to leave no enemies capable of recovering and coming back when you least expect it.

Thats actually a very LE mindset to have. In fact Artemis Entreri (who is very LE) thinks the exact same thing.

Possibly LN. It depends on this dudes use of lethal force, harming others and so forth.

If he's intentionally (and unecessarliy) crippling people simply so they dont 'come after him later on' he's at a bare minimum N.


Later on he, being the smartest and more capable of his team, becomes captain, and shows favor to those who follow his lead. Those who don't are not on his team at all. Exile is a form of punishment, and in a lot of societies its worse than death. He also never loses. Not once. He believes there is no other option but to win, he is put in situations that are supposed to be unwinnable but he does it anyway. He has a person that is almost a capable as him but isn't quite there, so he continues to win and win because in his world there is nothing else but victory and anything short is not a solution. That's Strength above all.

He's sounding even more LE.

'We do it my way.... or you get a punisment worse than death?'

[alchahest]

Most of those three are terrible at working with other people. When compared to normal everyday people as a baseline.

Murdock drives his best friend and lovers away from him in his quest for justice (and drives his Legal practice into the ground). Dredd is in no way good at playing with others (and doesnt have anything even resembling anything in the way of friends or a private life) and Bruce Wayne is perpetualy isolated as well, allowing no-one to get close to him.

All three are loners. In fact, they all demonstrate pretty serious personality disorders.

All three have different alignments as well. Dredd is LN (with evil tendencies due to upholding the laws of a dystopian totalitarian regime). Batman (and Daredevil) is clearly Good aligned (he avoids or expressly repudiates killing, torture, rape, exessive violence and harming others) with a strong lawful bent.

Daredevil is much more OK with using standover tactics (intimidation, beating up a defenceless opponent till he tells him what he wants) than the Batman, but broadly speaking the two are very similar in alignment and outlook.

Improtantly both Wayne and Murdock repudiate and revile Frank Castle (textbook 'LE Vengance' trope) for his (evil) methods in combatting evil (perhaps as both Batman and Daredevil see in the Punisher a monster that they themselves could have become).


All of them work with people - Batman in the Justice League, and the entire batfamily. Dredd with a few of his fellow judges, and eventually an entire community of mutants, and Daredevil has a few really solid friends from the avengers and heroes for hire (TV's The Defenders). To the point where Iron Fist and Spider-Man both pretended to be him while he was on trial, accused of being daredevil, to help his alibi.

Anyways, I'm not trying to die on a hill here, I'm just saying there's much more play in Paladin of Conquest than just the evil conqueror. Paladin of Conquest is the type to ride to the blasted plains of Avernus and slay every Duke of Hell over and over again, until they surrender Hell itself. And he can also have a kid brother he sends gold to so he can go to school and be educated as a magister.

[Kane0]

For what it's worth, my current Conquest Paladin is a Hobgoblin Pirate captain (dex based of course).

And man is it a blast.

[Tectorman]

Lol, this is brilliant!

It's why the OoT Paladin is the most Paladin-y Paladin of all. With every single other kind, part of the reason they adhere to their tenets is to not lose their shiny class features. The OoT Paladin, on the other hand, never has that at stake in the first place. So if you take an OoT Paladin and have him follow the Devotion tenets, you know he's more sincere because he has no other angle. Or a Vengeance or an Ancients. Or whatever combination of tenets (or however few, if any) you feel your character should have. The important thing is that, you the player can finally relax, even though you have "Paladin" written on your sheet, and just play the game and enjoy yourself without the worry.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Thats actually a very LE mindset to have. In fact Artemis Entreri (who is very LE) thinks the exact same thing.

Possibly LN. It depends on this dudes use of lethal force, harming others and so forth.

If he's intentionally (and unecessarliy) crippling people simply so they dont 'come after him later on' he's at a bare minimum N.



He's sounding even more LE.

'We do it my way.... or you get a punisment worse than death?'

He's actually an 8 year old child, who was fighting for his life. The kid is a good person, but that doesn't mean hes a pushover. Its self defense, or rather futer self defense. And exile isn't always a punishment worse than death i was telling you that its a punishment, and for some a very effective punishment. But again the point was to give examples, as anyone who has read the book would know that Ender isn't evil.

But since you use Entreri, you should know that he also has good tendencies or at the very least neutral ones. And that nothing is inherently evil with making sure someone doesn't kill you when you turn your head. Its not evil per say just practical to end a conflict with the intent that it doesn't happen again. There is more than one way to do it ( Kill them all, make a perceptibly lasting peace with both parties happy, Add them to your rule, etc).

[Bugado25]

The cleric of warlocks, a little odd, and needs a few fixes. Plus it does much of what the Undying Warlock does (self preservation) way better than that Patron and gets better abilities for helping its friends as well.
Expanded Spells - All of them seem to fit the subclass
Bonus Cantrips - Gives you some of the options you would want to look like a holy person. Would also be funny if combined with Pact of the Tome to just have a ton of cantrips (you end up with 9 just from this class).
Healing Light - I feel that this might step too much on the toes of paladin and cleric (particularly life cleric) as you get quite a lot of healing from this and your spells combined, while still getting all the of the warlock perks. Plus it seems a lot more powerful than the other patron's level 1 features. So I think it is probably too strong, especially when compared to its closest comparison in the Undying Patron.
Radiant Soul - I understand limiting it to only one addition per spell cast, but limiting it to just one target makes it much weaker than either the sorcerer or wizard version of this ability.
Celestial Resilience - Once again, way better than what the Undying Warlock gets, this gives you and your party a sizable boost to their health pool each rest. Similar amount of health for yourself as the Undying capstone, but with the added bonus of helping your friends as well. The only downside is that it is temp hp, so it doesn't stack with armor of agathys.
Searing Vengeance - An improved version of the of the Undying Warlock's Defy Death (although it does come later), but this only further crushes an existing Patron, and is probably too powerful due to the amount of bonuses it provides in addition to bringing you back from unconsciousness.


If you compare the Celestial Warlock to the most underpowered archetype launched it will certaintly look OP.

You need to compare it to the good options. If you compare it to the fiend warlock it is mostly fine.

The 3rd level features are mostly on par.

Dark One's Blessing is on par with healing light and fiend spells are a little better. The bonus cantrips are good for flavor but do not have much power.

Radiant Soul looks better than Dark One's Own Luck at the beggining, but warlock are already adding cha mod to cantrips anyway (it enables other builds but is not really a power boost), so it is only relevant for the leveled spells, adding only up to 10 of damage per short rest on most levels. So, the 6th level abilities are also on par.

10th level is the only one were the Celestial is overshadowing the Fiend. Celestial Resilience is much stronger than Fiendish Resilience and needs to be changed.

Both of their 14th level are really strong, and I don't think neither of them are much stronger then the other.

So, I think the Celestial is mostly on par with the Fiend. Making it on par with the worst option (Undying) is a terrible decision.

[Corran]

For what it's worth, my current Conquest Paladin is a Hobgoblin Pirate captain (dex based of course).

And man is it a blast.
Well, now you have to show us your character sheet/build and expand on the character's background. Or else...:smallmad:

ps: Btw, I went like:
Hobgoblin? Awesome! (one of my favourite races!)
Conquest paladin? Awesome pick for a hobgoblin!
Pirate? Heck yeah!!!
Dex based? Um..... wut???

[Pex]

He's actually an 8 year old child, who was fighting for his life. The kid is a good person, but that doesn't mean hes a pushover. Its self defense, or rather futer self defense. And exile isn't always a punishment worse than death i was telling you that its a punishment, and for some a very effective punishment. But again the point was to give examples, as anyone who has read the book would know that Ender isn't evil.



He specifically fights two bullies, separate incidences, and kills them. He isn't told they died to protect his psyche, but when he means to prevent future attacks he goes all the way. It's the same belief that leads him to commit genocide in totally nuking the aliens, not that he knew it was real at the time.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

...snip

Overall, I have mixed feelings about removing the patron connections from these invocations. On one hand, it allows for more customization, and on the other hand I can't help but feel that some of the options don't seem to fit all patrons (why can people who don't know the fireball spell learn Kiss of Mephistopheles?) and they helped add to the decision of what patron to choose.
Aspect of the Moon - Interesting ability, but seems odd to connect it to the Pact of the Tome.
Cloak of Flies - Probably on the weak end if only because you can't use it that often unless you just leave it on all day. I mean at that point either give it more uses and give it a duration or just make in unlimited.
Eldritch Smite - I love that they freed this from being tied to specific weapons, however, I don't like that it is another invocation tax for blade pact and that it competes for the level 5 invocation with thirsting blade. So one of them you will have to wait until level 7 to get. I also think that it might be too weak, even if it scales the same as paladins, because warlocks actually have fewer individual slots than paladins, meaning the extra 1d8 always added is much bigger for paladin. The prone effect is nice, but I would rather it deal a little bit better damage (maybe not the 10d8 from before but I think that there can be a middle ground).
Frost Lance - At a good power level and makes sense to be usable by most warlocks.
Ghostly Gaze - I still love this ability as I did the first time it showed up.
Gift of the Depths - Pretty good, but nothing special
Gift of the Ever-Living Ones - Odd name for a familiar related ability, but it does provide another reason to pick chain pact. Could be pretty crazy on a Celestial Warlock.
Grasp of Hadar - Seems odd that it is more limited than Repelling Blast given that most warlocks would rather push people away from them anyways.
Improved Pact Weapon - I kinda miss the better versions of this, but now that you don't need specific weapons for the smite, you would probably just switch out of all of them anyways once you found a good magic weapon.
Kiss of Mephistopheles - Strange that warlocks who don't know fireball can still cast it with this invocation, and it is powerful, but with a relevant downside. Power wise, I think that it is fine, but it is the one Invocation that I think most needs to be tied to a specific pact.
Maddening Hex - I like the ability, but when printed the effects it works with need to be spelled out more clearly as it is currently too open ended (what exactly counts as cursed by my class feature count as?).
Relentless Hex - Same as above, except I love the added ability to chase people as a bladelock.
Shroud of Shadow - Makes sense to open this one up to all patrons and I love the ability.
Tomb of Levistus - I still feel that it could be too weak, if only because the number of downsides it gives doesn't outweigh the health gained from the feature.
Trickster's Escape - A fun little get out of jail free card.

Overall, I think that the Shepard and Oath of Conquest are close to completion, but Celestial Warlock and Cavalier need either a lot of work or to be scrapped. The Invocation changes are mostly improvements, but many still need work.

You mention finding a middle ground between the smites, Old smites were 10d8, new smite is 6d8. So they could do 8d8 but then how would you spread that it across the lvls. Now a difference of 4d8 from the old smite is only 18 dmg on avg that doesn't start until lvl 9. At lvl 9 thats 36 dmg/short rest, 11 is 54 dmg/sr, and 17 is 72 dmg/sr. That is not a lot of dmg/sr at the respective levels.

[DivisibleByZero]

You mention finding a middle ground between the smites, Old smites were 10d8, new smite is 6d8. So they could do 8d8 but then how would you spread that it across the lvls. Now a difference of 4d8 from the old smite is only 18 dmg on avg that doesn't start until lvl 9. At lvl 9 thats 36 dmg/short rest, 11 is 54 dmg/sr, and 17 is 72 dmg/sr. That is not a lot of dmg/sr at the respective levels.

There was no 1/rd restriction on the earlier versions. And you were Blade Pact, so you have Extra Attack via Invocation.
So that was actually 20d8+2*weapon potential in a single round.... and if you're only using a rapier that's ~109 damage average.... at level NINE.... which is obviously broken beyond repair and needed to be fixed immediately.
I'm all for having a Nova option, but if that Nova can one-shot a CR12 Archmage as the BBEG, (without a crit!) at level nine, then it needs to go. I'm glad it did.

[Ralanr]

He specifically fights two bullies, separate incidences, and kills them. He isn't told they died to protect his psyche, but when he means to prevent future attacks he goes all the way. It's the same belief that leads him to commit genocide in totally nuking the aliens, not that he knew it was real at the time.

Honestly the more I hear about sender the more I think he's kinda insane.

Not in the good way.

[Tetrasodium]

Intelligent mounts are 'uncontrolled' and annoying as hell to use. You have to use the 'ready' action while you wait for them to have their turn and take you where you need t go, and (as a fighter) this sucks because you can only ready 1 attack, and (as a caster) this sucks because readying a spell uses concentration.

They can always also decide to leave the fight, fight someone else, or do whatever the DM wants them to do.

If you're riding your party Druid, then this means you both need to work together well, and (s)he is prepared to take you into melee with the guy you want to fight (I can see a lot of arguments between players here). Even then, you still have the problem that you have to use the 'ready' action all the time (missing a lot of attacks and constantly mucking about waiting for your Druid mount to take you where you want to go).


I've done it in more than one game with more than one other person. The only difficulties that have come up were having to explain to a rogue multiclass how sneak attack works because he didn't understand that the combo would negate the need to have advantage. I've had more problems with people asking the gm if they can climb on & stand on the bear using ath;etics or acrobatics (seriously, wtf?!?) than anything else. a wildshaped moon druid wants to eat things & prior to 18+ has literally just about no other option but melee unless they have a concentration spell like moonbeam/flaming sphere/etc going before they wildshape. as long as the rider is also a melee focused character, there should generally be no conflict.

As to the "you have to wait for the mount's initiative & it's a pain", that's why myself & others have suggested a maneuver that lets the rider act on the mount's initiative & vice versa. Being able to explicitly force an attack to target the mount instead of the rider could be another. Likewise with things like a telepathic link/"seemingly telepathic level of coordination"between rider & mount or the spell/ability sharing of find steed as other possible perks & maneuvers

[rooneg]

Yeah it's an "Invocation Tax" but it's also a powerful feature. What, are you supposed to get it for free?
The concept that the bladelock's desire for several invocations is somehow unfair or bad just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For example, other casters usually give up their entire level 6 archetype feature for extra attack. Spending an Invocation is a smaller price.
Similarly, the Improved Pact Weapon is basically a Better Fighting Style and Smiting is a big important Paladin feature.

4 invocations out of 8 (adding Lifedrinker) is a really good deal for all the weapon-swinging power you get to tack on a full caster.

The problem is that spending an invocation for an extra attack isn't getting compared to other classes with Extra Attack, it's getting compared to Eldritch Blast, which requires you to spend literally nothing to get the same thing, you just magically get it when you level up.

[MasterMercury]

Honestly the more I hear about sender the more I think he's kinda insane.

Not in the good way.

The thing is though, all of that is true, but he's still a good kid. He loves his family, his friends, everyone. But, if you're an enemy and you provoke him, he will strike you so hard that you will never be a threat again. If you read the book, Ender is easily a conquest paladin. Granted, his alignment is a hot topic, but he's not all bad, and he's not a megalomaniac dictator.

[Mortis_Elrod]

The thing is though, all of that is true, but he's still a good kid. He loves his family, his friends, everyone. But, if you're an enemy and you provoke him, he will strike you so hard that you will never be a threat again. If you read the book, Ender is easily a conquest paladin. Granted, his alignment is a hot topic, but he's not all bad, and he's not a megalomaniac dictator.

This was the point i was trying to make. And yes Pex you are correct.

Conquest paladin tenets can be accomplished without being an evil jerk.

[toapat]

This was the point i was trying to make. And yes Pex you are correct.

Conquest paladin tenets can be accomplished without being an evil jerk.

ya, conquest V2's tenets are Pro-Evil where as Conquest V1 was definitely evil.

[skaddix]

Ender has his dear brother to be the Megalomaniac Dictator.
But that is the whole point of Ender's Family. They are the 3 Bowls of Porridge.
His Brother is too Evil and too much of Megalomaniac.
His Sister is too nice.
He is just right.


Yeah it's an "Invocation Tax" but it's also a powerful feature. What, are you supposed to get it for free?
The concept that the bladelock's desire for several invocations is somehow unfair or bad just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For example, other casters usually give up their entire level 6 archetype feature for extra attack. Spending an Invocation is a smaller price.
Similarly, the Improved Pact Weapon is basically a Better Fighting Style and Smiting is a big important Paladin feature.

4 invocations out of 8 (adding Lifedrinker) is a really good deal for all the weapon-swinging power you get to tack on a full caster.

Maybe if you are a Sorcerer, Wizard or Cleric but a Warlock is barely a full caster and is entirely dependent on short rest.
It might be fine at 20 or if you are dipping Sorcerer.
But having to level up a Bladelock is liable to be a real pain.
You don't get a 3rd level spell lot until 11th Level, 5th Level Smite at 10th.

Warlock vs Paladin
Warlock: 6-9th Level Spells, 4 5th Level Smites, Eldritch Blast
Paladin: Powerful Capstone, Saving Throw Boost for Party, Radiant Damage Bonus To Melee DMG, Healing/Cleansing, More Spell Slots Not Reliant On Short Rest

Before this update the main Warlock benefit was you got way more Powerful Smites.
So much so that if you had something like Hold Person on the opponent (to guarantee crit) you obliterate even BBEG.

[Malifice]

The thing is though, all of that is true, but he's still a good kid. He loves his family, his friends, everyone. But, if you're an enemy and you provoke him, he will strike you so hard that you will never be a threat again. If you read the book, Ender is easily a conquest paladin. Granted, his alignment is a hot topic, but he's not all bad, and he's not a megalomaniac dictator.

Most evil people aren't.

Even the most maniacal genocidal monster has a family that he loves and cares about.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Most evil people aren't.

Even the most maniacal genocidal monster has a family that he loves and cares about.

and most good people aren't all good. whats your point here? I'm giving an example of a non evil conquest paladin.

But more importantly conquest paladin's tenets aren't unplayable, again you can follow the tenets in more than one way.

[jaappleton]

Here's a swell idea:

Let's discuss the mechanics of the Conquest Paladin instead of whether or not you have to be evil to play it?

We went through like 8 pages of that when Conquest was first seen.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Here's a swell idea:

Let's discuss the mechanics of the Conquest Paladin instead of whether or not you have to be evil to play it?

We went through like 8 pages of that when Conquest was first seen.

Mechanically, i think is fine. Better than the previous version. Seems to work best if you need to control movement of multiple enemies, but works single target also. I'd use this paladin to say allow my wizard or sorcerer buddy to line up a decent aoe spell. Run in, Fear everyone, rooting them in place, they take damage for being there and for hitting you (which might be the only person they can hit) and you sit there soaking damage and dealing damage passively. Its kind of a taunt but not really, since they aren't forced to attack you. If i were to focus on this I'd keep my str at 16 while increasing Cha and Con, to increase DC and HP.

[skaddix]

Well I think its clear you don't have to be "Evil" mostly because 5E removed all alignment restrictions.

As for mechanics pretty darn good...the Capstone might be a bit boring compared to PHB Fluffwise but you cant deny effectiveness. The powers of a Bearbarian and a Champion that is pretty grand for a melee focused character.

Yeah max CHA, Boost CON, STR is 3rd....but that is more because STR just need to be high enough to put on some Plate.
The DMG provides plenty of options to boost your STR via magic items.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Here's a swell idea:

Let's discuss the mechanics of the Conquest Paladin instead of whether or not you have to be evil to play it?

We went through like 8 pages of that when Conquest was first seen.

It's pretty powerful. Very much offensively-oriented, much like the Oath of Vengeance. In all honesty I see little reason to not allow a player to take the Vengeance oath but take the Conquest powers, they'd fit either theme.

The capstone's one of the best in the game, I think, but it's a capstone so I see no reason it shouldn't be. Scornful Rebuke would probably be overpowered if you got it at a level that mattered. At level 15, it's still very good but not amazing. You'll rarely see it in any game.

The aura's one of the best tanking abilities paladins have access to. Only the Crown paladin's CD is better, and only because there are a lot of dangerous creatures that are immune to fear. Speaking of CD, the fear one goes from 'pretty good' to 'excellent' post-aura at 7th, while guided strike is a complete godsend on any melee. If you absolutely, positively must get that smite off right now, this is the ultimate insurance.

Their spells are, all in all, quite good. There's some very powerful options in there, though the later level ones are a bit lackluster. Cloudkill and dominate person are really lackluster for a level 17 character, and dominate beast is so niche that it will almost never come up. All the rest are pretty great, though, and the fact that you get them earlier in your career makes them outshine the late level mehs.

As written I think it's stronger than the Oath of Vengeance at offense and almost as good as the Oath of the Crown at tanking. Which is to say it's overpowered, but not grossly so. I hope it's toned down just a slight bit before release, but not too much.

[toapat]

It's pretty powerful. Very much offensively-oriented, much like the Oath of Vengeance. In all honesty I see little reason to not allow a player to take the Vengeance oath but take the Conquest powers, they'd fit either theme.

from the PoV of a DM, i prefer conquest to Vengeance overal.

while im not perfectly happy about that spell list, Conquest isnt some milk toast oath you can follow just by being a protagonist. Conquest comparatively actually requires management

[SharkForce]

Honestly the more I hear about sender the more I think he's kinda insane.

Not in the good way.

he's a child soldier, being manipulated by the military from a very young age to be molded into their idea of a "perfect general" so that he can lead their military in exterminating an alien species. so yes, he's got some fairly major psychological issues. frankly, he probably has unrealistically few psychological issues, but that's probably true of many fictional characters.


The thing is though, all of that is true, but he's still a good kid. He loves his family, his friends, everyone. But, if you're an enemy and you provoke him, he will strike you so hard that you will never be a threat again. If you read the book, Ender is easily a conquest paladin. Granted, his alignment is a hot topic, but he's not all bad, and he's not a megalomaniac dictator.

is he? does he really strive to conquer things constantly? does he believe that it is his duty to become strong enough to take over the leadership of anything he's involved in? because it seems suspiciously like he's able to just turn it off when it's inconvenient. which is an important difference: ender has not sworn an oath to be like that all the time for the rest of his life. a conquest paladin has. ender deals with threats like a conquest paladin might, but he doesn't deal with life outside of those threats as a conquest paladin must. the conquest tenets mirror his philosophy on war, but not his philosiphy on life.

but anyways, this has been more than enough discussion about the suitability of the class for a PC in roleplaying terms i suppose. i won't be letting anyone use it in a game i'm DMing, but this will be my last post on the subject.

[Daion515]

So to me as I thought about how I'd play the conquer paladin...

Does it seem like you could make an overprotective personality out of those tenets?

Douse the flame of hope - "I will ensure my enemies will leave me and my party alone. For good."

Rule with an iron fist - "Do not split the party! If you do so, we will move on without you as you are a hindrance to our progression." "If you take this action that is potentially dangerous to the party. I will not hesitate to punch you in the face."

Strength above all - "I have to be stronger than the strongest! This is how I can best ensure my party is safe! Anything less is unacceptable."

I totally see an overprotective sibling being this. There would be little problem building a tank paladin for sure here.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

There was no 1/rd restriction on the earlier versions. And you were Blade Pact, so you have Extra Attack via Invocation.
So that was actually 20d8+2*weapon potential in a single round.... and if you're only using a rapier that's ~109 damage average.... at level NINE.... which is obviously broken beyond repair and needed to be fixed immediately.
I'm all for having a Nova option, but if that Nova can one-shot a CR12 Archmage as the BBEG, (without a crit!) at level nine, then it needs to go. I'm glad it did.

You're right about that, it definitely needed to be limited to 1/rd like all the other high powered class abilities. But cutting the dmg as well is overkill i think.
As for a lvl 9 hexblade 1 shoting a CR 12 Archmage, if he is the BBEG i doubt the warlock could walk right up to him without fighting a bunch of minions. Even if the hexblade could walk straight up to the Archmage this is assuming that you win initiative, are close enough for melee, and both attacks hit. Unlikely against a BBEG Archmage who probably knows you're coming, and has lots of spells to keep you from hurting him. ie Wall of Force. You know a Fighter has just as much chance to one shot him at lvl 9 as well using GWM and action surge 2d6+5+10+1d8(27.83 avg) *4 attacks = 111.33 damage in one round without any crits or magic weapons.

[Pex]

The thing is though, all of that is true, but he's still a good kid. He loves his family, his friends, everyone. But, if you're an enemy and you provoke him, he will strike you so hard that you will never be a threat again. If you read the book, Ender is easily a conquest paladin. Granted, his alignment is a hot topic, but he's not all bad, and he's not a megalomaniac dictator.

That's his brother. :smallbiggrin:
I was rather annoyed with the brother/sister taking over the world. I hated getting interrupted with the story I care about. I'm glad they took that out of the movie.

[rollingForInit]

This UA seems like a mixed bag to me. Some of the subclasses look really good, but others either step on other class features too much or just seem unimaginative. I put everything in spoilers cause it started getting pretty long.


Kiss of Mephistopheles - Strange that warlocks who don't know fireball can still cast it with this invocation, and it is powerful, but with a relevant downside. Power wise, I think that it is fine, but it is the one Invocation that I think most needs to be tied to a specific pact.

Is it strange, though? There are many Invocations that allow you to cast spells that you don't know. This just comes with a restriction (when you hit with Eldritch Blast).

They could've added a restriction for knowing fireball, though. You could've learnt it by multiclassing.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Is it strange, though? There are many Invocations that allow you to cast spells that you don't know. This just comes with a restriction (when you hit with Eldritch Blast).

They could've added a restriction for knowing fireball, though. You could've learnt it by multiclassing.

I'd say it was weird the first time along with the other patron specific invocations. I understand that people liked the flavor it brought , but I rather like being able to choose which invocations I want without worrying over which patrons I need. If you need to make it easier for yourself, change the name of the invocation to suit your patron. With these new invocations I doubt I'll keep agonizing blast for more than a level or two, unless I want that type of style for my warlock (I prefer a Marlee fish tho). And I think that's good.

[Kane0]

Well, now you have to show us your character sheet/build and expand on the character's background. Or else...:smallmad:

ps: Btw, I went like:
Hobgoblin? Awesome! (one of my favourite races!)
Conquest paladin? Awesome pick for a hobgoblin!
Pirate? Heck yeah!!!
Dex based? Um..... wut???

Well, okay then.
Targon Wormtail is a member of a seafaring 'nation' of goblinoids living on a pretty large island off the coast of one of two main continents, on which there are at least three kingdoms/empires in various states of cold and hot war with each other. The islanders are regarded as the best sailors and possessing the best naval capabilities in the known world, famous for both trading and raiding.

Targon himself was born on the island and has served on ships since he could walk, steadily moving up the ranks to captain his own modest ship, The Bastard Dirk. He has unshakable faith in the Hobgoblin way of life ('Th' Chain O' Command', of which he keeps a field manual much like a cleric their sacred text) and since the island has been roped into aiding its nearest neighbor has acquired a nice little fleet for himself, though unfortunately dissenters from non-hobgoblin elements of the nation have instigated a civil war that has nearly crippled the hobgoblins.

Currently level 8, Targon uses intimidation and his fear tactics to keep his crew motivated and disciplined. His dex allows him to climb and navigate ships well and use both blades and pistols in combat. He prides himself on personally taking part of boading actions, forcing surrenders with minimal casualties (conquest fear abilities and hobgoblin saving face feature are brilliant in this situation).
Targon has no feats at present, but he uses the mariner fighting style and a shark summoned mount while enjoying the benefits of a +1 sabre and brooch of shielding.

At one point Targon had a 'spiritual advisor' on board like all other ships (PC Storm sorcerer) but he turned out to be part of the rebel faction so he died. Other notable crew members under his command include a goblin artificer (lead gunner and repairman), coast circle druid (navigator and surgeon), minotaur fighter (head boarder and shantyman) and about two dozen goblin slaves and hobgoblin marines.

[jaappleton]

Curious, what weapon set up would be best for a Conquest Paladin?

The kicker is they get Spiritual Weapon. That's an excellent use of your bonus action. So no need to spend a Feat on Polearm Master. But it also means it competes for Shove granted by Shield Master. It competes for the possible bonus action swing of GWM Feat.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I'm almost thinking Dex-adin here. Dueling style, possibly with the Defensive Duelist Feat. There's really nothing competing for your Reaction on this.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Curious, what weapon set up would be best for a Conquest Paladin?

The kicker is they get Spiritual Weapon. That's an excellent use of your bonus action. So no need to spend a Feat on Polearm Master. But it also means it competes for Shove granted by Shield Master. It competes for the possible bonus action swing of GWM Feat.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I'm almost thinking Dex-adin here. Dueling style, possibly with the Defensive Duelist Feat. There's really nothing competing for your Reaction on this.

I'd probably ignore weapon feats on a Conquest paladin, given how tightly it works. Sword and board, rely on multiple attacks and smites while making hitting you back a hopeless affair. To really fit the theme, you want to be a relentless, unstoppable force. You'll need ASI's to shore up your statline, then just go to town as-is. The kit wants for little.

Multiclassing's different. Conquest Dexadin with Assassin Rogue would be really interesting flavorwise, like a kind of mob boss or enforcer. You'd have some scary spike damage. The classic Sorcadin might pair best with Shadow or Draconic, and both also have very good lore synergies. Palock, maybe Tome of the Chain and Infernal for flavor? Tome is still best, naturally, but I feel like Chain fits Conquest beautifully. There's a lot to like there. Fighter and Barbarian just point towards a nasty, sadistic individual who can't be reasoned with, carrying overwhelming melee might into battle. Go three levels deep in Eldritch Knight for Shield and Find Familiar and you're one scary paladin.

[Rfkannen]

I really want to play a lawful good half orc (or maybe full orc?) conquest paladin at some point! that would be so awesome! Fun mechanically and fluff wise! Some sort of Alexander the great type.

Cavalier just seems boring. I mean I like mounted character a ton, but it is just really gosh darn boring. You know what, I would take basically the same archetype and add like 6 ribbons, that that point it would be fine. It seems to work well enough mechanically, it is just really boring. I LOVE PLAYING MOUNTED CHARACTERS, HOW IS THIS BORING TO ME!

[Mortis_Elrod]

Double shields. Grab tavern brawler and shield master plus dual wield.

The wall is the true conqueror.

Or maybe... dual wielder+Fellhanded+Flail mastery.
Dual wield a flail and battle axe . OA with the flail for prone, attack when you have advantage with battle axe. Start making everyone speed 0, frightened, and prone.

Feat intensive but could be very fun

[ScathachOfSkye]

You get to exchange an invocation when you advance in level.

So you hit 5th level, pick up Thirsting blade as your 3rd invocation, and swap out (xxx) for Eldritch smite.



Forgetting the fact that Warlock spell slots increase in level at a faster rate than Paladins.

When the 'lock gets access to eldritch smites, he's already spamming +4d8 smites. A paladin has to wait till 9th level for +4d8 damage smites, and by then the 'lock is spamming +6d8 damage smites.

The Paladin has to wait till 17th level for +6d8 damage smites (and even then he only gets 1/long rest). By which time the 'lock has [4 x +6d8 damage smites], that refresh every short rest.

Your 'standard' adventuring day features 2-3 short rests (yours might not, but take that up with your DM). Thats (3-4) times the warlock is refreshing his pact magic slots.

The paladin makes up for this by having his 'lesser' slots to smite with as well, but on the downside, he needs to ration those slots over a 6-8 encounter adventuring day (which is the default length day, regardless of if your campaign uses it or not).

I would say its pretty even, with each 'smite' having its own pros and cons.The 'knock them prone' is just gravy (smite on the first attack, auto knock prone, and then advantage on the rest).

Yeah, I forgot about the ability to change out Invocations, which solves that issue.

As for the comparison between the smites:


Warlock

Assuming that you get 2 short rests somewhere in the day, that means you get 6 slots * 4d8 per slot = 108 average damage

With only 1 short rest, however, you would get 4 slots * 4d8 per slot = 72 average damage

Paladin

(4 1st level slots * 2d8 damage per slot) + (2 2nd level slots * 3d8 damage per slot) = 63 average damage

So at level 5, the Warlock wins.


Warlock

2 short rests, so 6 slots * 6d8 = 162 average damage

1 short rest, so 4 slots * 6d8 = 108 average damage

Paladin

(4 1st level slots * 2d8 damage per slot) + (3 2nd level slots * 3d8 damage per slot) + (2 3rd level slots * 4d8 damage per slot) = 112.5 average damage

The warlock wins after 2 short rests.



Warlock

2 short rests, so 9 slots * 6d8 = 243 average damage

1 short rest, so 6 slots * 6d8 = 162 average damage

Paladin (Including bonus 1d8 that Improved Divine Smite adds to smites)

(4 1st level slots * 3d8 damage per slot) + (3 2nd level slots * 4d8 damage per slot) + (3 3rd level slots * 5d8 damage per slot) + (1 4th level slot * 6d8 damage per slot) = 202.5 average damage

The warlock needs 2 short rests to beat paladin.

I personally only see around 1 short rest each day, meaning that the two are roughly even on smites. However, if you get 2+ a day, the warlock will have more overall damage.

I also think that the warlock also has to give up more of its overall class features to compete with the paladin, as the non-spell warlock class features aren't as powerful as those of a paladin.

The warlock gets their subclass features + a few invocations + their eventual mystic arcanum. Paladins still have Lay on Hands + Aura of Protection + their subclass features + better defenses, which are overall more powerful until warlocks gets their later spells at which point they are a lot closer. Paladins also get their smite a little earlier.

Both gets a later bonus to their melee attacks from either Lifedrinker or Improved Divine Smite that are roughly equal to one another. Lifedrinker does more damage on average with high CHA, but Improved Divine Smite also gives a bonus to any smites used per Sage Advice.

So with only 1 short rest, Warlock lags behind overall until around level 11 (the first mystic arcanum and a third slot) and Paladin has a smoother power curve. With 2 short rests, the Warlock does more smite damage than a Paladin, but the Paladin's other features could make up for it, at least until Warlock reaches level 11, when the higher level spells may put the Warlock ahead. And Warlock definitely doesn't need their 10d8 smites back, cause then Paladin would be far behind them in smiting ability. At least that is how I feel about this.

[Matrix_Walker]

There's a book coming out in 5 months that is said to include the Cavalier.... So what is the point in this now? Somehow if the book is headed to print, I double they are still looking for feedback for editing... If there are changes, what's the point in showing us this one, and if there are no changes, then why spoil more material from a book that already will have reprinted material?

I'm disappointed already.

[Waterdeep Merch]

There's a book coming out in 5 months that is said to include the Cavalier.... So what is the point in this now? Somehow if the book is headed to print, I double they are still looking for feedback for editing... If there are changes, what's the point in showing us this one, and if there are no changes, then why spoil more material from a book that already will have reprinted material?

I'm disappointed already.

UA is a combination of both weird new ideas that can never be included in the system as it's currently written and playtest material aimed at gathering feedback so that the D&D team can determine what the players want and how the balance of their latest ideas pans out. The former is a rarity, but it does appear from time to time. The latter is the most prevalent use of UA.

If you're not interested in playtesting and you don't want to see anything in an unfinished form, UA isn't for you. Wait for the books. But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable or even generally acceptable by the rest of the D&D community that is interested in the direction of the game and does want to give their input to the game designers that are going to sign off on it at the end.

[Matrix_Walker]

UA is a combination of both weird new ideas that can never be included in the system as it's currently written and playtest material aimed at gathering feedback so that the D&D team can determine what the players want and how the balance of their latest ideas pans out. The former is a rarity, but it does appear from time to time. The latter is the most prevalent use of UA.

If you're not interested in playtesting and you don't want to see anything in an unfinished form, UA isn't for you. Wait for the books. But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable or even generally acceptable by the rest of the D&D community that is interested in the direction of the game and does want to give their input to the game designers that are going to sign off on it at the end.

Why did you quote my post?

Your response does not address why they would bother printing something that will not undergo change or feedback before print...
Nor does it address my annoyance at having material already in a published book wasting print in another publication rather than including new material.

[DragonSorcererX]

Oh boi! I would really like to play a Hexblade 3/Conquest Paladin X who was a good aligned normal (but charismatic, though, dextrous and wise...) guy until he found this cool cursed sword that corrupted him and twisted his personality, and now he needs to feed the sword, so he becomes a murderhobo that tries to do good by killing people and taking their stuff!

[rooneg]

There's a book coming out in 5 months that is said to include the Cavalier.... So what is the point in this now? Somehow if the book is headed to print, I double they are still looking for feedback for editing... If there are changes, what's the point in showing us this one, and if there are no changes, then why spoil more material from a book that already will have reprinted material?

I'm disappointed already.

There is no world in which the book is currently headed to print. One of the WotC guys tweeted something about the next HC going to print shortly, XGE would be scheduled for two months later, so presumably it's got some time before it's locked down. If they're posting those classes now it's because they want feedback now so that the feedback can go into the book.

[Bloodcloud]

I'd probably ignore weapon feats on a Conquest paladin, given how tightly it works. Sword and board, rely on multiple attacks and smites while making hitting you back a hopeless affair. To really fit the theme, you want to be a relentless, unstoppable force. You'll need ASI's to shore up your statline, then just go to town as-is. The kit wants for little.

Multiclassing's different. Conquest Dexadin with Assassin Rogue would be really interesting flavorwise, like a kind of mob boss or enforcer. You'd have some scary spike damage. The classic Sorcadin might pair best with Shadow or Draconic, and both also have very good lore synergies. Palock, maybe Tome of the Chain and Infernal for flavor? Tome is still best, naturally, but I feel like Chain fits Conquest beautifully. There's a lot to like there. Fighter and Barbarian just point towards a nasty, sadistic individual who can't be reasoned with, carrying overwhelming melee might into battle. Go three levels deep in Eldritch Knight for Shield and Find Familiar and you're one scary paladin.

Sentinel sounds good for a damned if you do/danned if you don't build...

[Matrix_Walker]

There is no world in which the book is currently headed to print. One of the WotC guys tweeted something about the next HC going to print shortly, XGE would be scheduled for two months later, so presumably it's got some time before it's locked down. If they're posting those classes now it's because they want feedback now so that the feedback can go into the book.

With the writing needing to be done before it goes to the editor, then layouts, et al... there is not time to play-test, get feedback and review for a november release.

[Waterdeep Merch]

With the writing needing to be done before it goes to the editor, then layouts, et al... there is not time to play-test, get feedback and review for a november release.

We're the play test and the feedback. That's the point of the UA.

It just doesn't take that long to print books anymore. If they've got a fast service (which I very much suspect given the sheer quantity of books they've published in the past) they have about a month before release to send a finalized form to the printers.

The layout, fluff, art, and everything else is unlikely to change much, and wording on a couple of subclasses is unlikely to cause any major issues with page count and spacing. Even most of the editing will be done before then, since, again, all the fluff will be settled ahead of time and should make up the bulk of the product.

Further, we're getting this play test a good four months ahead of schedule. These are probably their 'problem' subclasses that they're the least sure about, and thus in most need of critique.

[rbstr]

With the writing needing to be done before it goes to the editor, then layouts, et al... there is not time to play-test, get feedback and review for a november release.

So your logic here is that the book has to be finished already and thus they're lying about this for no good reason at all?

OK, bud.

(The feedback survey is already up, FWIW)

[Malifice]

But more importantly conquest paladin's tenets aren't unplayable, again you can follow the tenets in more than one way.

I think you're missing the point.

The issue isnt that a good roleplayer cant work within those tenents and not be a tyrannical jerk.

Its that the class is built largely around being a tyrannical jerk. It pushes you in that direction, and sadly a lot of players looking at those tenents are gonna start bossing around other players and hogging the limelight, and smacking down NPCs and PCs who back chat them.

Like Kender (who are built around being a thieving jerk) it oozes potential problems.

I think we can at least agree that as a DM you would need to be very careful before allowing one in your game.

[Malifice]

I personally only see around 1 short rest each day, meaning that the two are roughly even on smites. However, if you get 2+ a day, the warlock will have more overall damage.

Take that up with your DM (or your group). The DMG recommends 2-3 per day.

Your DM could be using 'gritty realism' granting the Warlock a massive leg up over the Paladin.


I also think that the warlock also has to give up more of its overall class features to compete with the paladin, as the non-spell warlock class features aren't as powerful as those of a paladin.


Of course they arent.

But thats like saying the 'non spell class features of the Wizard' arent as powerful as those of the Fighter.


The warlock gets their subclass features + a few invocations + their eventual mystic arcanum.


Eldritch blast, at will invocations (Alter self is amazing), pact features, and effectively full 9th level spell casting.

Fighter 3/ Fiend Warlock 17 (blade) [eldritch smite, thirsting blade, life drinker] is a perfectly viable Bladelock or Gish. 22 Temp HP on a kill, 4/slots per short rest (5th level), 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level arcanum 1/day, eldritch blast for ranged combat, Great weapon master, action surge, superiority dice as a battlemaster.

We also havent seen the Hexblade yet (and we know it's coming)


So with only 1 short rest, Warlock lags behind overall until around level 11 (the first mystic arcanum and a third slot) and Paladin has a smoother power curve.

That goes without saying. But again, thats less than the 'default' number of short rests. Thats a subjective thing with your group or DM. If you're playing a Warlock in this game, I would have words with the DM: 'Please include more encounters per day/ more short rests per day as I am getting left behind'. Otherwise, if the DM doesnt care about policing the adventuring day, give up and play a Wizard.

The DMG recommends 2.5 per day. Thats the balance spot, and it seems (again) to be the pivot point where they balanced this ability around.


With 2 short rests, the Warlock does more smite damage than a Paladin, but the Paladin's other features could make up for it, at least until Warlock reaches level 11, when the higher level spells may put the Warlock ahead. And Warlock definitely doesn't need their 10d8 smites back, cause then Paladin would be far behind them in smiting ability. At least that is how I feel about this.

Im playing a Hexblade and I voluntarily nerfed this to 1d8+1d8 per level (same as Paladin smite).

The new changes just mirror what I was doing already, so im not too worried (other than the severe nerf to my Hexblades Curse ability, that now ends when the target dies thanks to the removal of Curse Bringer).

[alchahest]

I think you're missing the point.

The issue isnt that a good roleplayer cant work within those tenents and not be a tyrannical jerk.

Its that the class is built largely around being a tyrannical jerk. It pushes you in that direction, and sadly a lot of players looking at those tenents are gonna start bossing around other players and hogging the limelight, and smacking down NPCs and PCs who back chat them.

Like Kender (who are built around being a thieving jerk) it oozes potential problems.

I think we can at least agree that as a DM you would need to be very careful before allowing one in your game.

I don't agree at all with that. The mechanics of the class are about psychological warfare, debuffing using morale. Not about ruling with an iron fist. Mechanics do not inform anything about the role playing side, except how the character fights. The mechanics don't say "You will be a jerk to your friends and innocent bystanders" they say "When you fight, you terrify your enemies". I don't know how this would be something you have to consider carefully when any given full caster has ways to enslave the minds of their enemies, or turn them into things without consent, or send them to other planes... the list goes on. and also includes using fear.

The Conqueror has a given niche in combat, he or she is a capable melee combatant, who uses force of personality and prowess to cow their enemies, that's all. Unless, you, as a DM, think that the fear from this source (perhaps using the aura and CD in concert to make feared enemies stay put) is more difficult in play than turning the enemy into a trout, or Commanding them to lay face down in itching powder, or using a watery sphere to carry them over a cliff before dropping concentration. Mechanically all they do is fight like a paladin who scares enemies instead of chasing them across creation and mauling them with advantage til they're dead.

And honestly those problems you listed are clearly strawmen. Unless you're prone to playing with people who actively hog spotlight/are jerks to the rest of the party or the GM. In that case, I'm sorry you don't have a better group, but with clear communication of expectations and intent, you can usually help them get on board with D&D being a collaborative story rather than a solo one.

[Malifice]

The mechanics of the class are about psychological warfare, debuffing using morale. Not about ruling with an iron fist.

If you dont rule with an iron fist you lose your mechanics and become an oathbreaker. Its literally one of the tenents of the class.

The fluff of the class is cleary 'Lawful Evil tyrannical prick'. The tenents of the class amount to 'rule others and brook no challenges to your rule'

Yes a good player could play one within those guidelines without causing problems (with a good degree of permissive interpretation). But the potential for problems with it (i.e. a player being a bully) are huge.

[Corran]

Curious, what weapon set up would be best for a Conquest Paladin?

The kicker is they get Spiritual Weapon. That's an excellent use of your bonus action. So no need to spend a Feat on Polearm Master. But it also means it competes for Shove granted by Shield Master. It competes for the possible bonus action swing of GWM Feat.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I'm almost thinking Dex-adin here. Dueling style, possibly with the Defensive Duelist Feat. There's really nothing competing for your Reaction on this.
Heh, I've been wondering the same thing myself. It seems tricky, but I guess the answer will slowly reveal itself if we start optimizing from the level 7 fearure, so at some point, as the better choices become clearer and clearer, the ideal weapon set up will reveal itself. Will probably start a thread on this one of these days, after I put some more thought into it.

[D-naras]

Ideal or not, a Paladin of Conquest must use a flail for maximum style points.

[Arkhios]

Ideal or not, a Paladin of Conquest must use a flail for maximum style points.

Are you thinking what I am thinking? :smallcool:
http://www.allvatar.com/rex/files/crusader_1.png

[Corran]

Ideal or not, a Paladin of Conquest must use a flail for maximum style points.
Hmmm, I like more maces and morningstars, but this is close enough. I'll alow it.:smallbiggrin:

ps:@ Arkhios: Dammit! Now I have to search for the image of a priestress of Bane from the 3e DMG, and find a way to edit it in here. Do you have any idea how much time this is going to take?!!!!:smallsigh: (actually, that was fast for my standards)
Here ya go:

https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/c/cd/Clerics.JPG/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/300?cb=20070716190503



.................^

This is good too.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/76/c0/51/76c051682f390a64708607a9b4c8a8ff.jpg

ps: Ok, how can I modify the size of these images?

[Unoriginal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Cavalier isn't really dependent on having a mount, right?

I mean, it seems to me like they'd do just fine even in places where mounts can't go. In fact, they seem pretty dangerous in restrained space.

[Arkhios]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/76/c0/51/76c051682f390a64708607a9b4c8a8ff.jpg

ps: Ok, how can I modify the size of these images?

I'm not sure if you can, sadly :(

[Tetrasodium]

If you dont rule with an iron fist you lose your mechanics and become an oathbreaker. Its literally one of the tenents of the class.

The fluff of the class is cleary 'Lawful Evil tyrannical prick'. The tenents of the class amount to 'rule others and brook no challenges to your rule'

Yes a good player could play one within those guidelines without causing problems (with a good degree of permissive interpretation). But the potential for problems with it (i.e. a player being a bully) are huge.

detect evil - > smite evil -> group:"wtf man, he was trying to help us stop the doppelganger 'orphanage', you didn't even try to find out what was evil about him. why did you do that?" -> "go near that orphanage & my code says that I need to kill you too"

Your logic is the reason that we have had decades of "lawful stupid ***hole"paladins to deal with.

[jaappleton]

Arkhios,

I totally agree. It is BEGGING to be used with a flail.

.....is Flail a legit weapon in 5e? I don't think I saw it in the PHB. If not, what would you use? Would it be considered a Reach weapon? If so, I'd bump a whip to d6, bludgeoning damage, and call it a day.

[JumboWheat01]

Arkhios,

I totally agree. It is BEGGING to be used with a flail.

.....is Flail a legit weapon in 5e? I don't think I saw it in the PHB. If not, what would you use? Would it be considered a Reach weapon? If so, I'd bump a whip to d6, bludgeoning damage, and call it a day.

Flail is a normal weapon. 1d8 bludgeoning, and that's that. No reach, no versatility, no special property, just 1d8 bludgeoning. Since it lacks anything special, it pretty much needs to be used with a shield.

Or if you take Dual Wielder and use two flails.

[Maxilian]

Arkhios,

I totally agree. It is BEGGING to be used with a flail.

.....is Flail a legit weapon in 5e? I don't think I saw it in the PHB. If not, what would you use? Would it be considered a Reach weapon? If so, I'd bump a whip to d6, bludgeoning damage, and call it a day.

Yes, they do a 1d8, there is also a feat in the UA for feat for weapons for the flail

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/UA-Feats-V1.pdf

[jaappleton]

Damn. Flails are boring in 5e, huh?

Of the Weapon Feats, Id have to say Fell Handed is the best. But still not convinced I'd take any of them.

As another poster said, there's really no.... there's no "Oh you HAVE to take this feat to get the most of this!", there really isn't. Like how Barbarians and GWM go together like peanut butter and jelly, this doesn't seem to have an excellent pairing.

EDIT:

Wait....

The Dragon Fear Feat. That'd pair pretty damn well.

[Arkhios]

Damn. Flails are boring in 5e, huh?

Yeah, that's it. Boring mechanically, though cool visually.

If I were to improve flails, I'd give the user advantage to shoving prone and disarming.

In fact I might add that as a house rule right now.

[Matrix_Walker]

Yeah, that's it. Boring mechanically, though cool visually.

If I were to improve flails, I'd give the user advantage to shoving prone and disarming.

In fact I might add that as a house rule right now.

A flail would be resistant to parrying and disarming, and their chains are designed wrap around shields, limiting their usefulness. I can't even imagine how you would shove

I would make them immune to parry effects and give them a +1 vs opponents with a shield.

[SharkForce]

detect evil - > smite evil -> group:"wtf man, he was trying to help us stop the doppelganger 'orphanage', you didn't even try to find out what was evil about him. why did you do that?" -> "go near that orphanage & my code says that I need to kill you too"

Your logic is the reason that we have had decades of "lawful stupid ***hole"paladins to deal with.

no, ***hole players (and possibly ***hole DMs) are why we have had decades of ***hole paladins.

my 2nd AD&D PHB has 2 rules for the paladin code:

1) no chaotic actions
2) no evil actions.

while it is probably excessive (it even extends to actions while under mind control, and does not allow for even a single slip-up without some fairly ridiculous requirements to restore paladin status if it even allows for restoration of paladin status at all), nowhere does it say that you must instantly slaughter every evil thing you come across. you are under no obligation to spam detect evil and immediately try to kill everything that detects evil.

though as i was thinking about it, i am starting to think that the current paladin really should be 2 different classes. the theme of the base class abilities is healing and protection. why does a conquest paladin, who has devoted their entire life to conquering stuff and inspiring, get the ability to heal people, prevent fear, and remove harmful spells? i mean, it was already a bit of a stretch for a vengeance paladin, but at least there is one clause that says when they're not out on hate-filled murderous rampages trying to kill whatever it is they swore vengeance upon, they're supposed to be helping the victims of evil creatures... there's absolutely *nothing* like that in the conquest class.

also, while it might arguably make sense for a paladin that falls from an oath of devotion or oath of the ancients to somehow wind up as an oathbreaker (i guess violating their oath somehow twists them into that), it doesn't make much sense that a vengeance paladin who decides that vengeance at any cost is too high of a cost somehow gets twisted to evil for, say, refusing to trigger a trap on a group of hated enemies that have human children as hostages, or that a conquest paladin who decides to show mercy to an opponent somehow winds up an oathbreaker... (or for that part, maybe we just need multiple subclasses for different kinds of paladins that break their oaths. still doesn't make sense for treachery or conquest paladins to have all the healing and protection abilities).

[Arkhios]

A flail would be resistant to parrying and disarming, and their chains are designed wrap around shields, limiting their usefulness. I can't even imagine how you would shove

I would make them immune to parry effects and give them a +1 vs opponents with a shield.

In case you haven't noticed, there are no separate rules for Tripping, unless you are a Battle Master or take Tripping Maneuver with Martial Adept. "Shoving" to get someone prone is close enough mechanically.

[Matrix_Walker]

In casw you haven't noticed, there are no separate rules for Tripping, unless you are a Battle Master or take Tripping Maneuver with Martial Adept. "Shoving" to get someone prone is close enough mechanically.

Cool beans... I don't think they really have the chain length to cause a trip effect, but I see where you are going with that now.


The true strength of a flail was the difficulties in stopping the attack, if you block the chain or haft, the head is still coming!

[Tetrasodium]

In case you haven't noticed, there are no separate rules for Tripping, unless you are a Battle Master or take Tripping Maneuver with Martial Adept. "Shoving" to get someone prone is close enough mechanically.


This is somewhere between misleading & just downright incorrect.



h o v i n g a C r e a t u r e
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee
attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or
push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple
attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces
one of them.

The target of your shove must be no more than one
size larger than you, and it must be within your reach.
You make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the
target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics)


check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win
the contest, you either knock the target prone or push
it 5 feet away from you.


Knocking prone is effectively the same as trip since the maneuver you mention has the same knocked prone result but uses a superiority die instead of an attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

This is somewhere between misleading & just downright incorrect.

Knocking prone is effectively the same as trip since the maneuver you mention has the same knocked prone result but uses a superiority die instead of an attack.

Or, it says exactly the same thing that you just did.

You: Knocking prone is effectively the same as trip
Him: "Shoving" to get someone prone is close enough mechanically.

But somehow you're right and he's wrong?

[Finieous]

I think you're missing the point.

The issue isnt that a good roleplayer cant work within those tenents and not be a tyrannical jerk.

Its that the class is built largely around being a tyrannical jerk. It pushes you in that direction, and sadly a lot of players looking at those tenents are gonna start bossing around other players and hogging the limelight, and smacking down NPCs and PCs who back chat them.

Like Kender (who are built around being a thieving jerk) it oozes potential problems.

I think we can at least agree that as a DM you would need to be very careful before allowing one in your game.

I agree it's tricky given the dynamics of most RPG groups. The tenets certainly mean this character is driven to be Bossman. You can come up with concepts that, at least in setting context, are "mostly not evil" to varying degrees: Alexander, Charlemagne, Geoffrey's King Arthur, Ragnar Lodbrok, Napoleon. But they're all the boss. They're not always going to be successful in their bossing -- all the above figures had people close to them challenging and even threatening their position. But that's a fraught party dynamic for most groups.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Damn. Flails are boring in 5e, huh?

Of the Weapon Feats, Id have to say Fell Handed is the best. But still not convinced I'd take any of them.

As another poster said, there's really no.... there's no "Oh you HAVE to take this feat to get the most of this!", there really isn't. Like how Barbarians and GWM go together like peanut butter and jelly, this doesn't seem to have an excellent pairing.

EDIT:

Wait....

The Dragon Fear Feat. That'd pair pretty damn well.

Revenant Dragonborn Conquest Paladin.
Dragon Fear
Dual Wielder
Fell Handed
Flail Mastery

You were brought back to take over the world. You wield a Flail and Battleaxe and inspire fear.

I know that leaves you with only one stat bump, but cmon. That looks fun. Probably drop Dual wielder and choose fell handed and rock handaxes or battle axe +shield would make it online at level 4 (8 with dragon fear). But if you could.....i would.

[Unoriginal]

I agree it's tricky given the dynamics of most RPG groups. The tenets certainly mean this character is driven to be Bossman. You can come up with concepts that, at least in setting context, are "mostly not evil" to varying degrees: Alexander, Charlemagne, Geoffrey's King Arthur, Ragnar Lodbrok, Napoleon. But they're all the boss. They're not always going to be successful in their bossing -- all the above figures had people close to them challenging and even threatening their position. But that's a fraught party dynamic for most groups.

Maybe you've heard about me
All in the news today
I'm kind of legendary in the most destructive way

I have a secret hideout
I've got the fancy swords
I've got a bone to pick with all generic demon lords

Open a dictionary
Turn it to "Mastermind"
You'll see a picture of me with my other bros in line

I'll burn your village and I
Won't even look behind

I need not be kind

(You know why?)

I'm the boss
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H841uTdr5S0)

[Lombra]

Maybe you've heard about me
All in the news today
I'm kind of legendary in the most destructive way

I have a secret hideout
I've got the fancy swords
I've got a bone to pick with all generic demon lords

Open a dictionary
Turn it to "Mastermind"
You'll see a picture of me with my other bros in line

I'll burn your village and I
Won't even look behind

I need not be kind

(You know why?)

I'm the boss
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H841uTdr5S0)

Now I want to make a Sephirot themed character so bad. I think I'll merge him with my Griffith character concept, they both strive for conquest after all.