UA: Strixhaven - multi-class available subclasses

[micahaphone]

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/strixhaven

pdf direct link:
https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/UA2021_06_08_MagesStrixhaven.pdf

[Dork_Forge]

Haven't read through it yet but didn't see a thread. (https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/UA2021_06_08_MagesStrixhaven.pdf)

[Amnestic]

I like the idea of subclasses that are less class-specific. I do think it's odd that you can only progress it over one class though. I guess that's to disincentivise dipping for class features while still getting subclass progression?

Seems weird that Prismari doesn't get Bard though.

[Yakk]

Bards get 3 subclass features, starting at 3, capping at 14. -- 3/6/14
Wizards get 4, starting at 2, capping at 14. 2/6/10/14
Sorcerers get 4, starting at 1, capping at 18. 1/6/14/18
Druids get 4, starting at 3, capping at 14. 2/6/10/14

So one in 1-3, one at level 6 (everyone).

Druids/Wizards get 10/14
Bards get 14
Sorcerers get 14/18.

So Bards are going to lack either the level 10 or 14 feature. Sorcerers get one of the two 10 or 14 features delayed until 18, and the other at 14.

[Dork_Forge]

Just starting to read it now, this is ugh. They couldn't even match up the viable classes with classes that have the same subclass levels?

Edit: A construct that has an unlimited use, ranged Cure Wounds? Are you freaking kidding me?

The Warrior level 6 ability is just a more powerful Tasha Bladesinger's Extra Attack basically?

Are they even trying anymore?

[micahaphone]

Here's a rundown of all the options:



Mage of Lorehold:Bard,Warlock, or Wizard
Lore and history focus
Level 1+: free sacred flame, comprehend languages, then a domain list (knock, locate object, speak w/ dead, spirit guardians, arcane eye, stone shape, destructive wave, legend lore)
summonable "ancient companion" possessed statue, works similar to the Steel Defender. Can choose Healer, Sage, or Warrior spirit.
Level 6: gain a bonus based on what type of ancient companion is with you - increased HP and healing, adv on int checks and extra d8 damage on a spell slot attacks, or free weapon attack with extra d8 damage when you cast a cantrip
Level 10: make an enemy vulnerable to an attacks damage when they're hit by an ally, prof bonus times per LR.
Level 14: Bonus action to enter "a state of chronal chaos", choose 1 benefit for each turn for the next minute. Add a d6 to saving throws against damage, b/p/s resistance, or +15 ft speed and don't provoke opportunity attacks. Can't use same benefit twice in a row.
once per long rest, extra uses cost at least a 4th level slot.

Mage of Prismari: Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard
elemental focus
level 1+: extra skill prof, bonus action dash w/ extra riders, reminds me of eladrin's misty step w/ rider. PB uses/LR
Level 6: get an elemental resistance, when casting that type of spell you make an aura that can share your resistance with adjacent allies
level 10: when you deal elemental damage, extra damage and rider effect. Cold = slow target's speed, fire = give ally temp hp, lightning = remove target's reaction
Level 14:gives prof in dex saves, a dex save roll of 9 or lower can be made a 10.

Mage of Quandrix: Sorcerer/Wizard
Mathemagical!
level 1+: guidance and guiding bolt for free. Domain spell list (enlarge/reduce, spike growth, aura of vitality, haste, control water, freedom of movement, circle of power, passwall)
when casting spell that targets creature, extra rider on it or another creature w/in 30 ft. Wis save to avoid a -d6 on next attack roll, or add a d6 to next attack roll or saving throw.
Level 6: use your reaction to force a Cha saving throw against a creature w/in 30 ft, can willingly fail. On fail, teleport them to another space w/in 30 ft of you. PB uses per long rest.
Level 10: once/turn, when you damage a creature, force a con save or they have disadv on str/dex saves, weapons deal half damage. pb uses per long rest
Level 14: perma b/p/s resist, can move through objects/creatures as though they're difficult terrain, take force damage while moving through them.

Mage of Silverquill: Bard/Warlock/Wizard
power of words!
1+: free sacred flame or viscious mockery, 2 skill prof
As a reaction can impose disadvantage on attack, check, or saving throw after a creature succeeds an initial roll. If they then fail, you give an ally a stored advantage roll. 1/LR, or extra uses w/ spell slots
6: Learn Darkness for free, 1 free cast. When free cast, you can see through it and when a creature starts its turn in the darkness, you can deal 2d10 psychic damage to them.
10: can change a spell's damage type to psych/radiant, PB extra damage. If psych, creature is frightened by you, if radiant, creature is charmed by you. PB uses / LR.
14: using the disadvantage skill from level 1, if the target fails because of it, you can give vulnerability to one damage type for a turn.
Also when an ally w/in 60 ft takes damage you can use your reaction to give them resistance, but you take equal damage but as psychic.

Mage of Witherbloom: Druid/Warlock
necromancy, circle of life,
1+: learn spare the dying and cure wounds, inflict wounds. Domain spells, (lesser restoration, ray of enfeeblement, revivify, vampiric touch, blight, greater restoration, antilife shell, mass cure wounds)
As a bonus action, empower yourself for a minute. Either heal w/ hit die on activating turn & on future bonus actions, or you can change your damage type to necrotic and ignore resistance. PB uses per LR.
6: Create PB number of brews, which last for 24 hours. can grant cold/fire/nec/poison/rad resistance for an hour, heal 2d6+lesser restoration, or poison a weapon w/ extra 2d6 poison damage + con save for poisoned condition.
10: once per turn when healing or dealing necrotic damage, one target takes additional damage or extra heal equal to prof bonus
14: when a spell slot does necrotic damage, choose one of the targets (not undead or construct), heal an ally for 1/2 the damage dealt. PB/LR.

[Unoriginal]

On one hand, those subclasses are thematically and mechanically interesting (often more than most Wizard subclasses, I would say).

On the other hand, that "one subclass for several classes" sounds like the kind of things that will show up in one UA, be reworked in a second one, and then abandoned or so heavily changed it's nothing similar anymore.

Also, man, I know it's about a magic school, but I hope the book will have actual stuff for the other classes too.

[micahaphone]

I understand that prismari is mechanically elemental blasting, but it's really weird that the most artistic school can't be used by bards. Like here's two lore blurbs about some Prismari students:

-Prismari students are free to do projects alone or in groups. Rionya was the first to choose "both." She has little patience for explaining her vision to others, but there's one collaborator who will always follow her choreography in perfect harmony: herself.

-As soon as Zaffai came of age, his parents sent him to Strixhaven, assuring him his budding musical genius deserved the finest instruction in the world. (In truth, though his talent was indeed prodigious, they were also growing tired of their house being randomly struck by lightning or engulfed in cyclones whenever he practiced.) Even as he flourished as both mage and musician, he discovered a new aptitude: conducting.

In addition to teaching, he serves as Grand Maestro of Strixhaven's Orchestra of the Arcane, an elite extracurricular activity for top Prismari students. They practice only outdoors, for obvious reasons, and their concerts fill the sky with beautiful explosions of elemental magic.

[J-H]

Micahaphone, thanks for the rundown. I kind of bounced off the wall of text on this one.

Looks clunky and I don't think I'm very interested in any of these.

If WOTC continues to unmoor everything from starting decisions (race/ability scores, class/subclass), eventually we're going to end up with something closer to a point-buy system. I do not like the reduction in meaningful choices.

[Mitchellnotes]

I haven't fully gone through all of the options since there are so many permutations. However, this strikes me as very, very unbalanced. The silverquill feature alone is wild. As a reaction, I can use shield to avoid an attack, or if they roll high (or a crit), use that same spell slot to make them reroll. They either miss, or I mitigate a crit, either way is a win win.

Lorehold is also wild. Getting spirit guardians itself is nuts (bard with spirit guardians and plant growth?), but getting the companion that could potentially give d8+ temporary hit points as a bonus action on classes that typically don't have a use for their bonus action in their base class? Wow. The best comparison would be to celestial lock which is similar (bonus action), but is locked behind a certain number of times per day. The celestial lock could pick someone up, but the constant THP is going to go a long way to preventing someone from going down in the first place. Also, there is no expiration on them, so everyone in the party can start with those THP. Oh and a reaction to give something vulnerability a number of times equal to PB on a failed save? wild. Oh, and at 6, the warrior option gives an extra attack (that does extra damage) when you use a cantrip.

All in all, these are strong options in and of themselves without getting into specific abuses that could exist based on combinations with base classes. Maybe not as bad as lore wizard, but these would likely easily become top tier options.

[Jakinbandw]

So Bards are going to lack either the level 10 or 14 feature.

Bard can choose from any option they qualify for. That means they could skip a level 1 feature instead (considering that those tend to be weak)

[Dork_Forge]

Pact of the Blade Warlock, Spirit Guardians up, Ancient Companion next to you, making a Booming Blade attack and regular attack with a +1 weapon with additional damage and a bonus action attack?

(2d8+5)x2 + 1d8 +5 = Potentially 28.5 at will damage at level 6? That has plenty of natural scaling built into it to remain competitive basically forever? Ugh.

It doesn't even specify melee weapon attack, so you could just use a crossbow and a ranged cantrip, so EB builds get a serious bump.

[jojosskul]

I for one greatly enjoy that they're trying something new here. I'm also worried due to the quick turn around time (Strixhaven being slotted for release late this year) that this will come out half baked and unbalanced, which is how it currently feels.

I might be worrying for nothing, there was a quick turnaround time for the Van Richten's lineages and subclasses and I think they balanced* those fine. (*I'm looking at you spirits bard spiritual focus bonus damage/healing applying to almost NO spells as written). But those were tweaks to mechanics that already existed in DnD. This is a whole new ballgame.

I like the lore implications of Patron Free warlocks. Though exactly WHERE the power is coming from becomes up for debate. Do they get their mystical power from their college credits, and the pact is having to repay their student loans? Hits a little too close to home there. :smallbiggrin:

[micahaphone]

Micahaphone, thanks for the rundown. I kind of bounced off the wall of text on this one.


Glad to hear it helped at least one person. Half the reason I wrote all that was to keep it straight in my own head!


I haven't fully gone through all of the options since there are so many permutations. However, this strikes me as very, very unbalanced. The silverquill feature alone is wild. As a reaction, I can use shield to avoid an attack, or if they roll high (or a crit), use that same spell slot to make them reroll. They either miss, or I mitigate a crit, either way is a win win.

Lorehold is also wild. Getting spirit guardians itself is nuts (bard with spirit guardians and plant growth?), but getting the companion that could potentially give d8+ temporary hit points as a bonus action on classes that typically don't have a use for their bonus action in their base class? Wow. The best comparison would be to celestial lock which is similar (bonus action), but is locked behind a certain number of times per day. The celestial lock could pick someone up, but the constant THP is going to go a long way to preventing someone from going down in the first place. Also, there is no expiration on them, so everyone in the party can start with those THP. Oh and a reaction to give something vulnerability a number of times equal to PB on a failed save? wild. Oh, and at 6, the warrior option gives an extra attack (that does extra damage) when you use a cantrip.

All in all, these are strong options in and of themselves without getting into specific abuses that could exist based on combinations with base classes. Maybe not as bad as lore wizard, but these would likely easily become top tier options.

Quandrix (the math one) is pretty crazy to me - a stronger cutting words type thing on a sorc, domain list, and permanent b/p/s resist is amazing.

I'm not sure if I'm reading SilverQuill correctly, but because it never explicitly says advantage or disadvantage, could you force super disadvantage onto someone? They roll w/ disadv, succeed anyway, then you force another roll on them?

And I'm not sure what to think of the multiple sources of Vulnerability in this UA. On the one hand, it's a cool tag team thing, part of the reason I love the Grave cleric. On the other, it seems really strong on top of already strong subclasses. I guess they're only meant for use in this one particular school setting, so it's okay so long as they're all roughly the same level....

[nathanv]

I don't think this is too bad. Most of the options are far less useful than existing subclasses (esp. wizard subclasses, which are insane.) I don't expect any bards to want these either, except maybe silverquill, mostly for the lvl 1.

I like the silverquill for a warlock, which is what it looks balanced for, but I'm not sure they took multiclassing into account. Warlock 1 dip to get disad on saves, or potentially a crit reroll, at the cost of a spell slot +reaction, plus a future reroll for a party member, is really good when you have spellcasting slots. It's not so hot when you only have pact magic slots. The other abilities look good as well, but not as good as the existing top-tier wizard subs.

There is some potential for muddled rules when you consider that initiative, stealth, and perception are all ability checks that can be affected by silverquill's silvery barbs. Can you use a reaction to prevent surprise? Maybe that doesn't matter, since if you can see them, you're not surprised, but it seems to be edging onto some dangerous territory.

Pet plus D8+prof temp HP as a BA is a pretty nice 1 lvl dip as well, but the later abilities don't appeal to me.

Witherbloom isn't bad, but I don't think it's what an optimizer would pick. It's good that it exists, to make certain character visions possible.

I don't think this cross-class subclass idea ends up working out very well with the existing game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Witherbloom bonus spells

7th blight, greater restoration
At level 7 you have 4th level spell slots. GR is a level 5 spell. You can't use GR until level 9. What's going on here?

[micahaphone]

Witherbloom bonus spells
7th blight, greater restoration
Wait, at level 7 you have 4th level spell slots. you can't use GR until level 9. Did anyone proof this?

Oh look at mr fancy pants here, remembers what level certain spells are.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh look at mr fancy pants here, remembers what level certain spells are.
I have played a lot of clerics, and my Celestial Lock and my Lore Bard both have GR. It has gotten used a lot in the games I have played, and is bloody expensive to purchase (on a scroll) when one is under level 9 and one's comrades get turned into stone by:

Gorgon, Medusa, or Basilisk
(Nobody has been petrified by a cockatrice yet, but I am sure that will happen)

Blight isn't an issue. :smallcool:

[solidork]

The Lorehold 10th level ability is completely insane. You can straight up double the damage output of a martial character as a reaction, possibly more than one depending on how the initiatives work out.

I want to set up a double damage Disintegrate as a Lorehold Warlock with this ability.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are they even trying anymore? They are trying something, but this is a muddled mess.

Pact of the Blade Warlock
I am not sure that the pact boons even apply anymore if you pick the school as your patron. Here is why.

At Higher Levels
Like regular subclasses, the subclass you choose here grants your character new abilities at higher levels. When your character would normally gain a new subclass feature (as noted in your character’s class table), you gain a feature from this subclass instead. All the subclass features detailed here have a level prerequisite, as noted beneath their name, and you must meet the prerequisite to gain the feature.
I hope that I am wrong, but I get the idea that the college overwrites the pact boon for the warlock.

If I am wrong, great.
But here's the thing: what defines the Warlock's sub class? Patron or Pact?

or your warlock eschewed their patron’s usual boons for learning these more esoteric manifestations of power. So maybe I keep my patron (GOO for example) but instead of pact of chain, blade, tome, I get the features of Lorehold at level 3.

Make sense?

[EggKookoo]

Huh. I've been suggesting for some time that a hypothetical 6e might want to explore a modular subclass approach, where a given subclass wasn't strictly locked to a single parent class. Like, you take fighter, then pick school of evocation as your subclass, and that's how you get an EK. Of course it wouldn't work with the 5e classes as they are but if you were building a new edition...

I'm assuming you can't pick the same subclass twice? Like, if you're a bard and you pick Lorehold, then multiclass into wizard, you can't also pick Lorehold. I haven't looked through these subclasses in enough detail to know if that would be a silly thing to do anyway...

[KorvinStarmast]

We already have a thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?632721-New-UA-Mages-of-Strixhaven) :smallsmile:
Should one of us ask the mods for a merge?

[EggKookoo]

Oh, I didn't notice. Sorry. How does one go about requesting a merge?

[KorvinStarmast]

Looks like they were posted at about the same time. I'll PM one of the mods.

[micahaphone]

Thanks Korvin! It's a bit funny that we posted at the exact same time by pure coincidence. I saw that the article had been up for 45 minutes and didn't see a thread, I guess Dork Forge and I had the same thought.

I seem to remember this happening with previous UAs too :smalltongue:

[Dork_Forge]

They are trying something, but this is a muddled mess.

I am not sure that the pact boons even apply anymore if you pick the school as your patron. Here is why.

I hope that I am wrong, but I get the idea that the college overwrites the pact boon for the warlock.

If I am wrong, great.
But here's the thing: what defines the Warlock's sub class? Patron or Pact?
So maybe I keep my patron (GOO for example) but instead of pact of chain, blade, tome, I get the features of Lorehold at level 3.

Make sense?

I can't imagine the intent is to replace both patron and pact, since pacts have invocation implications, if that was the case then you'd lose a lot of invocation options and a significant chunk of power/utility as a Warlock. It'd basically reduce all Warlocks to cantrip spam, which let's be honest would just be Eldritch Blast spam.

This is reinforced by the patron giving 4 abilities that are perfectly (purely meant in the number of abilities sense) replaced by these options.

I've no diea why they wouldn't bother to clarify this though since the Warlock is a blatant stand out in the subclass system that would cause questions and concerns with this kind of system.

Completely unrelated side note: I refuse to believe that meaningful balance concerns have been made for each subclass in regards to how they'd work with each class and that class' respective spell list and abilities. That's a monumental balancing act that I just can't see them adequately undertaking.

[Dork_Forge]

Thanks Korvin! It's a bit funny that we posted at the exact same time by pure coincidence. I saw that the article had been up for 45 minutes and didn't see a thread, I guess Dork Forge and I had the same thought.

I seem to remember this happening with previous UAs too :smalltongue:

The awkward moment when the hive mind has two hands do the same task, we'd make very inefficient Mindflayers wouldn't we? :p

[KorvinStarmast]

I can't imagine the intent is to replace both patron and pact, since pacts have invocation implications, if that was the case then you'd lose a lot of invocation options and a significant chunk of power/utility as a Warlock. It'd basically reduce all Warlocks to cantrip spam, which let's be honest would just be Eldritch Blast spam.

This is reinforced by the patron giving 4 abilities that are perfectly (purely meant in the number of abilities sense) replaced by these options.

I've no diea why they wouldn't bother to clarify this though since the Warlock is a blatant stand out in the subclass system that would cause questions and concerns with this kind of system.
Great answer. I think an email or a tweet asking "Does college replace the patron or the pact boon?" would be in order. Warlocks are a unique case, and getting this wrong might really disrupt the warlock option.

[KorvinStarmast]

The awkward moment when the hive mind has two hands do the same task, we'd make very inefficient Mindflayers wouldn't we? :p
I don't like eating brains anyway ... :smallcool:

[Sigreid]

I like a lot of the ideas in general, but I'll be honest. I like the idea as a player of having an animated, intelligent statue that can heal at will following me around way, way to much. That' seems like a no brainer have to have feature that makes not just a particular subclass but particular focus of a subclass the default unless you just want to be quirky.

[ff7hero]

They are trying something, but this is a muddled mess.

I am not sure that the pact boons even apply anymore if you pick the school as your patron. Here is why.

I hope that I am wrong, but I get the idea that the college overwrites the pact boon for the warlock.

If I am wrong, great.
But here's the thing: what defines the Warlock's sub class? Patron or Pact?
So maybe I keep my patron (GOO for example) but instead of pact of chain, blade, tome, I get the features of Lorehold at level 3.

Make sense?

Isn't Pact Boon just a single decision at level 3 that affects what Invocations you can take? That sounds more like a Fighting Style than a Subclass.

[jojosskul]

Great answer. I think an email or a tweet asking "Does college replace the patron or the pact boon?" would be in order. Warlocks are a unique case, and getting this wrong might really disrupt the warlock option.

Clarification would be great, but from what I'm reading it seems fairly clear they're replacing the patron. The pact boon is a core feature of the Warlock, where the subclass abilities come from the patron choice. Those are what are being replaced. The main thing I'm basing this off of is that the Pact Boon is listed with the core Warlock features in the PHB, while the patron features are all listed under the subclasses.

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to imagine a magical college granting someone an enhanced familiar, training them with magical weapon capabilities, giving them extra cantrip training, or providing them with a lucky rabbit foot key chain (seriously does anyone actually use Talisman?)

[Millstone85]

Oh wow, they are announcing Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos (https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/1402295611731451904), on the same day they release an UA for it. :smallconfused:

[ZRN]

Quandrix (the math one) is pretty crazy to me - a stronger cutting words type thing on a sorc, domain list, and permanent b/p/s resist is amazing.

Yeah, am I reading the 1st-level Quandrix correctly, and you basically get a single-turn Cutting Words or Bardic Inspiration EVERY TIME you cast a spell with a spell slot (i.e. every turn as a sorcerer/wizard), for NO action?

Then at level 6 you get a hostile (or friendly) teleport as a reaction, multiple times a day? So when the ogre charges at you, you can just teleport him off a nearby cliff unless he makes a CHARISMA save?

Then at level 14 you can, all day long, walk through walls and enemies, and barbarian rage 24/7?

All this on top of a very good list of free spells?

This is just bonkers. People were complaining that the Tasha sorcerers were unbalanced because they got free spells - how about just as many free spells on top of the most powerful subclass abilities around?

[TheMango55]

Just starting to read it now, this is ugh. They couldn't even match up the viable classes with classes that have the same subclass levels?

Edit: A construct that has an unlimited use, ranged Cure Wounds? Are you freaking kidding me?


It gives temporary hit points, it’s not a cure wounds.


They are trying something, but this is a muddled mess.

I am not sure that the pact boons even apply anymore if you pick the school as your patron. Here is why.

I hope that I am wrong, but I get the idea that the college overwrites the pact boon for the warlock.

If I am wrong, great.
But here's the thing: what defines the Warlock's sub class? Patron or Pact?
So maybe I keep my patron (GOO for example) but instead of pact of chain, blade, tome, I get the features of Lorehold at level 3.

Make sense?

Your patron makes the subclass, and the pact feature is a warlock feature not a subclass feature. Your subclass features come at 1, 6, 10, and 14.

[Sigreid]

It gives temporary hit points, it’s not a cure wounds.





Good catch. that that makes it considerably less of a wow.

[Dork_Forge]

Great answer. I think an email or a tweet asking "Does college replace the patron or the pact boon?" would be in order. Warlocks are a unique case, and getting this wrong might really disrupt the warlock option.

Thoroughly agreed, not a Twitter person myself but I think we can expect that question soon.


Oh wow, they are announcing Strixhaven: A Curriculum of Chaos (https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/1402295611731451904), on the same day they release an UA for it. :smallconfused:

The rate at which book production is accelerating is extremely worrying... Candlekeep was already a bit of a lack luster effort, The Bard Van Richten offering had a feature that didn't really help anything RAW...

There may be justifications of 'they hired more people!' floating around, but the experienced senior staff that are meant to be checking things didn't magically multiply, their work on the other hand certainly did.


It gives temporary hit points, it’s not a cure wounds.

Good catch and thanks for the correction, this is actually worse in a lot of ways though. Especially since (yet again) they're temp hp without an expiry time built in (so use the default). The entire party going into every combat with a chunk of temp hp that's easily replaced? We've had quite enough of that already thank you...


Your patron makes the subclass, and the pact feature is a warlock feature not a subclass feature. Your subclass features come at 1, 6, 10, and 14.

Whilst intuitive this is not clearly stated, hence the confusion.

[RSP]

Just pointing out: yet more new subclasses giving Sorcerers added spells known.

[Unoriginal]

The rate at which book production is accelerating is extremely worrying... Candlekeep was already a bit of a lack luster effort, The Bard Van Richten offering had a feature that didn't really help anything RAW...

There may be justifications of 'they hired more people!' floating around, but the experienced senior staff that are meant to be checking things didn't magically multiply, their work on the other hand certainly did.

That's not the justification, the justification was that they were told to increase the production speed, and hired more people to achieve that.

And yeah, it's extremely worrying. Hopefully something happens to bring back the old style.

[jaappleton]

I’m getting slow, I used to be the first to post these nearly every time and I’ve been slow for the last few now.

I don’t dislike these. But I also need to really dive into each to see the synergy with each classes vanilla spell list to see what tricks lie in store.

[quindraco]

Just starting to read it now, this is ugh. They couldn't even match up the viable classes with classes that have the same subclass levels?

Edit: A construct that has an unlimited use, ranged Cure Wounds? Are you freaking kidding me?

The Warrior level 6 ability is just a more powerful Tasha Bladesinger's Extra Attack basically?

Are they even trying anymore?


I like a lot of the ideas in general, but I'll be honest. I like the idea as a player of having an animated, intelligent statue that can heal at will following me around way, way to much. That' seems like a no brainer have to have feature that makes not just a particular subclass but particular focus of a subclass the default unless you just want to be quirky.

It can't heal at will, and hasn't got an unlimited use, ranged cure wounds. It has a 15-foot, single target, lower-output Protector Eldritch Cannon.

Since you get it back every short rest, you can use it to heal, but it's awkward, since you only gain hit points once you have the L6 benefit and you change from non-Healer to Healer. So if you're on Healer right now, and you want to heal, you need to short rest twice: once to swap out of Healer, and then once to swap back in. Many DMs limit short rests already, so this may not be feasible.

[micahaphone]

Just pointing out: yet more new subclasses giving Sorcerers added spells known.

Well, all the more reason to homebrew some for the older origins!

I'm still of the opinion that sorcs should get a half domain list, one extra spell per level, 1-5. Gives them the thematic spells suitable to their origin while still keeping them as the fewer spells known specialist.

[TheMango55]

Whilst intuitive this is not clearly stated, hence the confusion.

It is clearly stated. For example the subclasses chapter of Xanathars lists new patrons, not new pact boons.

[quindraco]

Well, all the more reason to homebrew some for the older origins!

I'm still of the opinion that sorcs should get a half domain list, one extra spell per level, 1-5. Gives them the thematic spells suitable to their origin while still keeping them as the fewer spells known specialist.

Or you could just let them add their charisma modifier to their total number of spells known. That's a lot less work, and you don't need to wrestle with choices like when to allow them access to non-sorcerer spells.

All full preparation casters can prepare a number of spells equal to their level plus their spellcasting ability modifier, so at level 20, that's 25, in general. Sorcerers are baseline 15, so just handing them another 5 spells known would still put them a) 5 behind prep-casters and b) like all know-casters, they'd be locked in, unable to change spells even if they know they need something else tomorrow.

They'd also still be 2 known spells behind Bard, and without the Bard ability to have picked 6 of their 22 from any spell list. No real toe-stepping happening here.

[Dork_Forge]

It can't heal at will, and hasn't got an unlimited use, ranged cure wounds. It has a 15-foot, single target, lower-output Protector Eldritch Cannon.

Since you get it back every short rest, you can use it to heal, but it's awkward, since you only gain hit points once you have the L6 benefit and you change from non-Healer to Healer. So if you're on Healer right now, and you want to heal, you need to short rest twice: once to swap out of Healer, and then once to swap back in. Many DMs limit short rests already, so this may not be feasible.

Yes it's not healing like i initially read, but sorry you're selling it way short. This is basically the Steel Defender but modular, so whereas the Protector turret is limited duration, and eats up spell slots after the first hour this is always there you can just change out the function on a rest. And yes it's single target, but there's literally no reason you shouldn't be entering every combat with temp hp and from experience it's unlikely that the entire party will lose their temp hp at the same time. Oh and unlike the Artillerists turret this can just choose to attack whenever you want and is a full creature (that also has expertise in perception for some reason).

Getting the 1d8 to healing is pretty niche considering only the Bard gets healing, but hey you can just take Mark of Healing Halfling to get more out of that feature.


It is clearly stated. For example the subclasses chapter of Xanathars lists new patrons, not new pact boons.

That's not clearly stated in any way and Tasha's gave us a new Pact to choose, making that point entirely invalid.

[micahaphone]

Or you could just let them add their charisma modifier to their total number of spells known. That's a lot less work, and you don't need to wrestle with choices like when to allow them access to non-sorcerer spells.

All full preparation casters can prepare a number of spells equal to their level plus their spellcasting ability modifier, so at level 20, that's 25, in general. Sorcerers are baseline 15, so just handing them another 5 spells known would still put them a) 5 behind prep-casters and b) like all know-casters, they'd be locked in, unable to change spells even if they know they need something else tomorrow.

They'd also still be 2 known spells behind Bard, and without the Bard ability to have picked 6 of their 22 from any spell list. No real toe-stepping happening here.


Oh that's a good call, also scales a bit more slowly and incentivizes ASIs more. I just like collaborating with my players (or hypothetical DM) to build the thematic list.

[TheMango55]

That's not clearly stated in any way and Tasha's gave us a new Pact to choose, making that point entirely invalid.

This is like wondering what makes a fighter subclass, is it the martial archetype or the fighting style.

[Dork_Forge]

This is like wondering what makes a fighter subclass, is it the martial archetype or the fighting style.

Invocations, some of which have level gates, make me strongly disagree with this statement.

Again I think it is the Patron, but there's zero reason the couldn't have added a clarifying sentence.

[KorvinStarmast]

Clarification would be great, but from what I'm reading it seems fairly clear they're replacing the patron. The pact boon is a core feature of the Warlock, where the subclass abilities come from the patron choice. Those are what are being replaced. The main thing I'm basing this off of is that the Pact Boon is listed with the core Warlock features in the PHB, while the patron features are all listed under the subclasses.

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to imagine a magical college granting someone an enhanced familiar, training them with magical weapon capabilities, giving them extra cantrip training, or providing them with a lucky rabbit foot key chain (seriously does anyone actually use Talisman?) Good explanation. In a short sentence: College replaces Patron.

Your patron makes the subclass, and the pact feature is a warlock feature not a subclass feature. Your subclass features come at 1, 6, 10, and 14. Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.

[Mitchellnotes]

Yes it's not healing like i initially read, but sorry you're selling it way short. This is basically the Steel Defender but modular, so whereas the Protector turret is limited duration, and eats up spell slots after the first hour this is always there you can just change out the function on a rest. And yes it's single target, but there's literally no reason you shouldn't be entering every combat with temp hp and from experience it's unlikely that the entire party will lose their temp hp at the same time. Oh and unlike the Artillerists turret this can just choose to attack whenever you want and is a full creature (that also has expertise in perception for some reason).

Getting the 1d8 to healing is pretty niche considering only the Bard gets healing, but hey you can just take Mark of Healing Halfling to get more out of that feature.



That's not clearly stated in any way and Tasha's gave us a new Pact to choose, making that point entirely invalid.

One thing to note though is that you can "pre-load" all the characters in the party with this. This is like inspiring leader for free on top of everything else it does.

[Millstone85]

Again I think it is the Patron, but there's zero reason the couldn't have added a clarifying sentence.Lorehold, Silverquill and Witherbloom each say that the college is your patron.

[Waterdeep Merch]

These look pretty strong, but if the intention is that these are your only options when playing Strixhaven, it makes a world of sense. It's a magic college with defined specialties, this is the sort of adventure that should have more focused options that aren't bound by normal conventions. Try to imagine someone playing a berserker or battle master at Hogwarts.

I don't mind them being powerful if the idea is that everyone's a bit stronger than average, either. Theoretical issues only crop up if you try to play a Strixhaven student in a non-Strixhaven game, much like how the Ravnica backgrounds are only actually a problem if you use them outside of Ravnica where they don't belong. Like with those I expect both complaining and the occasional munchkin that wants to use them outside of their appropriate setting, but for their intended purpose, I like these.

I'm a bit cold on Witchlight, but this has my attention. It helps that I really like the cover art. I'm really hoping for a Persona-esque classes portion for the adventure. That could easily be the single most interesting permutation of downtime in all of 5e.

[Dork_Forge]

Lorehold, Silverquill and Witherbloom each say that the college is your patron.

Excellent, then I hope they make that more clear in the Using These Subclasses section that is at the beginning of the document or just scrap the Using sub section in each subclass and make a key.

This may seem nitpicky, it's UA afterall, but with their recent track record how they write a document put out to tens of thousands of people should at least be clear.

[quindraco]

Lorehold:Bard, Warlock, or Wizard
Prismari: Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard
Quandrix: Sorcerer/Wizard
Silverquill: Bard/Warlock/Wizard
Witherbloom: Druid/Warlock


Reorganizing by class:
Bard: Lorehold, Silverquill
Druid: Prismari, Witherbloom
Sorcerer: Prismari, Quandrix
Warlock: Lorehold, Silverquill, Witherbloom
Wizard: Lorehold, Prismari, Quandrix, Silverquill (anything except Witherbloom)


Bards get 3 subclass features, starting at 3, capping at 14. -- 3/6/14
Wizards get 4, starting at 2, capping at 14. 2/6/10/14
Sorcerers get 4, starting at 1, capping at 18. 1/6/14/18
Druids get 4, starting at 3, capping at 14. 2/6/10/14


Filling in missing info, Warlocks are 1/6/10/14, meaning they're the only class that gets every benefit and gets them as soon as they're theoretically available.

At a glance, I'd say the most powerful thing I can think of to do here is deliberately break the subclass locking with multiclassing, so:
Warlock (Hexblade) (so the lorehold attack is useful)
Bard (Lorehold) 6 (warrior bond)
Sorcerer (Quandrix) (you'll need quickened spell to make Quandrix genuinely good)

That's a quickened leveled spell (e.g. Haste) with the Quandrix buff on it + eldritch blast or booming blade + weapon attack that deals +1d8 radiant damage, and the whole thing is SAD. Your bonus action is overloaded quite a lot, so you don't need to spend it on this - you can hand out bardic inspiration to your statue, or have your statue attack.

Not sure how useful that is, but it's a thing.

[claypigeons]

If it makes it through as-is, I can't wait for Eldritch Knight 7 + Lorehold Wizard 6 doing 3 attacks + 3d8 damage on a Booming Blade. Seems nice.

Booming Blade attack + bonus action attack + lorehold forced add-on attack + 1d8 lorehold + 2d8 BB spell damage effect.

[Luccan]

I don't like this very much. I hope it's a one-off for Strixhaven, because this sudden shift in how subclasses work seems haphazard and poorly thought out. If it we're just a random UA like in the old days when they used to just be testing ideas that's one thing, but this is play test material for a book that's supposed to come out this year and it's messing with a fairly core aspect of 5e. It makes me slightly concerned about WotC's direction.

[GooeyChewie]

Oh... oh, this is... different.

Honestly, these don't feel like subclasses. They feel like guilds from Ravnica, even down to the "this only actually benefits spellcasters" bit. I wish they had been implemented in a similar manner, where you can simply make bonuses available to your players if they are playing in that setting. Of course, I also wish some of these benefited the more martial-oriented classes.

On the bright side, for my wallet at least, I'll be skipping Strixhaven unless this UA sees major changes.

[quindraco]

Yes it's not healing like i initially read, but sorry you're selling it way short. This is basically the Steel Defender but modular, so whereas the Protector turret is limited duration, and eats up spell slots after the first hour this is always there you can just change out the function on a rest. And yes it's single target, but there's literally no reason you shouldn't be entering every combat with temp hp and from experience it's unlikely that the entire party will lose their temp hp at the same time. Oh and unlike the Artillerists turret this can just choose to attack whenever you want and is a full creature (that also has expertise in perception for some reason).

Getting the 1d8 to healing is pretty niche considering only the Bard gets healing, but hey you can just take Mark of Healing Halfling to get more out of that feature.

Yes, for certain, everyone in the party with you should be entering every combat with 10 to 14 THP from you on them; assuming your DM lets you "take 8" on the roll to save die rolling, this should take you 48 seconds per target to erect, which is easy-peasy. If you're in a hurry, 6 seconds per target gets you on average 6.5 to 10.5 THP.

Of course, that requires Healer mode, which means AC 14 and no reaction to buff saves, but all of the modes hit as hard as each other, so if you want to use your bonus action to have the statue punch, no loss in utility there. If you're a bard, the only complication is that you can't hand out bardic inspiration to your statue and have it punch. Of course, if you're a bard, you'll also have to choose between War Echoes and History's Whims when you reach 14, and you won't get anything at 10.

Definitely a good pet, but I'm not sure what the best use of it is. Maybe a direct competitor with an Abjurer?

[quindraco]

If it makes it through as-is, I can't wait for Eldritch Knight 7 + Lorehold Wizard 6 doing 3 attacks + 3d8 damage on a Booming Blade. Seems nice.

Booming Blade attack + bonus action attack + lorehold forced add-on attack + 1d8 lorehold + 2d8 BB spell damage effect.

Not bad. Worse than an L13 fighter should be putting out, which is 4 attacks counting the bonus action, but not bad at all.

[quindraco]

Oh... oh, this is... different.

Honestly, these don't feel like subclasses. They feel like guilds from Ravnica, even down to the "this only actually benefits spellcasters" bit. I wish they had been implemented in a similar manner, where you can simply make bonuses available to your players if they are playing in that setting. Of course, I also wish some of these benefited the more martial-oriented classes.

On the bright side, for my wallet at least, I'll be skipping Strixhaven unless this UA sees major changes.

Prismari and Silverquill can be duct taped directly onto Ranger, Paladin, and Artificer without being too concerned about it. Prismari can be duct taped onto Arcane Trickster, it just isn't very good. Nothing can be duct taped to Eldritch Knight - Fighters get 5 subclass benefits, not 4.

[Dork_Forge]

Yes, for certain, everyone in the party with you should be entering every combat with 10 to 14 THP from you on them; assuming your DM lets you "take 8" on the roll to save die rolling, this should take you 48 seconds per target to erect, which is easy-peasy. If you're in a hurry, 6 seconds per target gets you on average 6.5 to 10.5 THP.

Of course, that requires Healer mode, which means AC 14 and no reaction to buff saves, but all of the modes hit as hard as each other, so if you want to use your bonus action to have the statue punch, no loss in utility there. If you're a bard, the only complication is that you can't hand out bardic inspiration to your statue and have it punch. Of course, if you're a bard, you'll also have to choose between War Echoes and History's Whims when you reach 14, and you won't get anything at 10.

Definitely a good pet, but I'm not sure what the best use of it is. Maybe a direct competitor with an Abjurer?

The 'loss' of AC isn't a problem since the statue can give itself temp hp before combat too and has a pretty healthy hp calculation.

It feels like a Stell Defender competitor more than anything to be honest, you can 'rebond' each rest to restore its hp and as two medium constructs they're similar in a lot of ways.

[stoutstien]

I don't like this very much. I hope it's a one-off for Strixhaven, because this sudden shift in how subclasses work seems haphazard and poorly thought out. If it we're just a random UA like in the old days when they used to just be testing ideas that's one thing, but this is play test material for a book that's supposed to come out this year and it's messing with a fairly core aspect of 5e. It makes me slightly concerned about WotC's direction.

I'm inclined to agree. This is a lofty concept to try to keep reasonably balanced in a short timeframe.
I'm not against it as an idea but it's troublesome to see a release date.

[Hael]

Quick hit thoughts on lorehold. Talk about a subclass where the mechanics doesn’t match the lore. Everything about this screams Gish, but I mean we’re looking at a subclass that very much wants to spam spirit guardians in a thorn build. You get resistances and potential immunity reactions. You can make a pretty incredible tank build with this.

The temp hp spam is crazy strong for a thorn build, and the warrior stuff just makes you a bladesinger with a pet. Yay! Potential game breaking synergy with a bladesinger actually, as thee way I read it implies that if u were a warlock lore hold and you took bladesinger to 6, you would get double EB spam on your action at lvl 12.

[Amnestic]

I'm inclined to agree. This is a lofty concept to try to keep reasonably balanced in a short timeframe.
I'm not against it as an idea but it's troublesome to see a release date.

Waterdeep Merch's earlier point that maybe they should be looked at for 'internal' balance against each other primarily (as with Ravnica backgrounds) rather than at 5e as a whole, is a fair one I think. If you're running a Strixhaven campaign then chances are everyone's going to be grabbing a Strixhaven subclass since that's what the campaign is about.

As for if that's "good design" or not, I'm definitely of two minds. I think exploring different avenues of design (such as sharing subclasses) in a setting book where you can limit it to that setting isn't a bad idea, and if it works you can always expand on it later. Looking into that sort of thing works better in a not-major setting book (it's not FR or Eberron or Planescape or Dark Sun or Greyhawk, after all) than the next Lore Character's Grimoire of A Lot Of things for sure.

On the other hand, doesn't feel great for people who might want the book for subclasses to bring into their own campaigns and are let down by the change in design.

It doesn't put me off, necessarily, but I will say that I'm more interested in potential downtime rules, maybe some new monsters, magic items both major and minor, and other things I could use for my own potential arcane academy game.

[Kane0]

Full breakdown at later time, but its nice to see UA once again actually tackling something a little less rote even if the balance is all over the place.
Shared-class subclasses have potential but the mismatch of subclass breakpoints between classes and the power between those classes are significant hurdles. Still, if homebrewers have been trying for years i'm sure some UA iteration can get there too.

One thing i would definitely let them do is function on multiclasses if both share the subclass, that seems a natural use for this other than standardization/reducing bloat.

[Amnestic]

The fun thing is you can take a background Ravnica Guild, then use a Strixhaven subclass (or two) for this Adventure crossover, for you know, like -all- the spells.

Shame you can't add Dragonmarked races on top of it. Maybe next time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thoroughly agreed, not a Twitter person myself but I think we can expect that question soon.
Yeah, it was indeed asked. (https://twitter.com/KorvinStarmast/status/1402347775262703623) :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

That's not the justification, the justification was that they were told to increase the production speed, and hired more people to achieve that. Hmm, quantity over quality. Reminds me of the late TSR era ... :smalltongue:

[BerzerkerUnit]

Not bad. Worse than an L13 fighter should be putting out, which is 4 attacks counting the bonus action, but not bad at all.

Sacrificing some damage for control isn't bad, unless the target moves on its turn, then the damage is probably superior.

At a glance the only one I really took to was Lorehold because I love pets and an option for a Warlock to be "Ghost Patron" and have Ghosts that possess statues (or horrible marionettes) follow you around looks super fun. Being a Blade Pact warrior that can skip Thirsting Blade in exchange for Booming Blade witha Pet from level 1 is my effin jam.

One downside everyone seems to be overlooking is, the statue has to be medium. No rules are provided on what constitutes a statue, or whether it needs to be in one piece or flies together like a WoW infernal when possessed. That said, I think a DM would be well within their rights to require a statue with a GP value and carting the damnable thing around in case the one you start with (if you start with one) will be a chore. Not to mention, just hijacking one from the local noble garden, town square, or guildhall isn't going to win you any friends (though may start a fun adventure on its own).

Quandrix has my interest but seemed all over the place. Permanent martial resistance and "walk through walls" even at level 14 seems a bit much when compared to paladin capstones.

Prismari was the one I was most interested in but turned out to be the least interesting with seemingly tiny buffs to damage here and there. The bonus action dash seemed interesting, particularly for a Tabaxi, blaze around the field and force a trip on every creature. If you can snag Armor of Agathys from a MC dip you can be dealing tons of cold damage, forcing trip saves and so on, but that's a very specific build.

For the first time since I saw it implemented I feel like they're leaning too hard on Temp HP applications and Proficiency bonus times per day.

Proficiency bonus times a day creates nice scaling, but it feels more like it was intended to balance characters with similar features and disparate ability scores. those stat disparities were usually the result of racial bonuses but post tasha's those don't have to be a thing. I think a mix of features "Cha bonus/long rest/short rest, X/short rest. X successful uses per long rest" and so on should continue to be employed to keep the class design from feeling too homegenized.

I think several of these could be very interesting if they were based on which Spell list you had access to instead of classes. In that way the Gishes like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster could get in on them from the outset without having to Multiclass. They'd be wildly different. Lorehold EKs would be very neat as would a Quandrix AT.

[Millstone85]

Thoroughly agreed, not a Twitter person myself but I think we can expect that question soon.
Yeah, it was indeed asked. (https://twitter.com/KorvinStarmast/status/1402347775262703623) :smallsmile:I have also brought the matter up. (https://twitter.com/Stonemill1985/status/1402353565822328854)

[Hael]

Reading more, I must admit to some disappointment. Some of these will make for some interesting builds, but the lore and mechanics don’t match at all, pretty much across the board.
It’s like they took random abilities of other classes, threw them into a pot and drew lots. Worse, they don’t really seem to understand their own games balance as various abiliities that have choices typically have one choice that is ridiculously stronger than the other.

From a balance point of view, I’m pretty sure Lorehold and silverquill are OP, Quandrix seems strong but maybe ok (just so helter skelter in design), prismari and Witherbloom are pretty bad though and deeply uninteresting. Prismaris lvl1 needs to be unlimited and they need better damage scaling and a new lvl14 feature. Witherbloom needs a much better spell list to be remotely interesting and they have a lot of garbage features (withering strike, the lvl 10 feature, all the potions other than the resist)

[verbatim]

I for one greatly enjoy that they're trying something new here. I'm also worried due to the quick turn around time (Strixhaven being slotted for release late this year) that this will come out half baked and unbalanced, which is how it currently feels.


UA to release for Theros was 09/18/2019 --> 07/21/2020 =~10 months for 2 subclasses

Strixhaven is 06/08/2021 --> 11/16/2021 =~5 months for a much more ambitious system, with the caveat that the core 5e staff has increased in size in-between the two.

I think it's likely that they're experimenting with this in a MTG specific setting book first as a means of testing the waters. If the idea is very popular/balanced/well received/etc it will show up in core 5e books in the future, if not it will stay exclusive to Strixhaven the same way Dragonmarks and Guilds are exclusive to Eberron and Ravnica games respectively.

[Rafaelfras]

I think The Earthsea sorcerer, The Riftwars saga and other novels really spoiled me about magic schools and wizards. I really don't find those appealing at all. The elemental school is just silly , the mathematical one simply don't fit in (we are doing mathemagics now :D) the history one is just bland and remind me a beast master hunter in the wrong way. Silver quill and withers boom are ok I guess.
All in all not my cup of tea 🍵

[Pex]

The like the idea of this. Whether these particular implementations work is another matter, but I do look forward to being able to have the same subclass for different classes. It is a logistical problem that classes get features at different levels, so it is important for an ability not to be too powerful when it can first come online nor obsolete or not worth the wait when the class that gets it last finally gets it.

Lorehold Lessons of the Past Warrior concerns me. When you cast a Cantrip you can make a weapon attack as part of that action. That weapon attack deals an additional 1d8 radiant damage if you hit. How does that interact with Booming Blade? Is the player making two weapon attacks? A Tome Warlock may pick up Shillelagh. Though it means being in melee, such a Warlock could cast Shillelagh and use it for the weapon attack that is granted in that same bonus action because he had cast a Cantrip. Then as his Action he casts Booming Blade getting another extra attack because he cast a Cantrip. At 6th level, the warlock can cast Shillelagh/Booming Blade every round, 18 CH:

Bonus Action: (1d8 + 4) Bludgeoning + 1d8 Radiant damage
Action: (1d8 + 4) Bludgeoning + 1d8 Thunder + (1d8 + 4) Bludgeoning + 1d8 Radiant damage

Total potential damage for the round: 6d8 + 12 damage in three attacks.

[Millstone85]

I think the fluff of the Lorehold warlock would align nicely with the often-brought-up concept of making a pact with your future self.

Watch out for quaruts, though.

[Protolisk]

I love the idea of class agnostic subclasses.

That said, there is definitely typoes and balance issues that makes me give this a worrisome look.

I honestly think Silverquill and Prismari are big standouts, in that Silverquill seems really powerful, trading essentially spell slots for "portent" like rolls that are guaranteed to foil an enemy and likely boost an ally, while Prismari just feels literally all over the place. Defend your allies, but only right next to you! Try to leave enemies reach to knock them prone... but you'll incur attack of opportunity. Dash away from the front line... but now you can't protect your allies within 5 feet. Oh, and blast enemies to give allies resistance... except if you expect enemies to use fire on your allies, aren't they typically resistant to the fire spell you just cast? Or are we supposed to just fire through our allies and hope they don't get mad because you reduced the damage? All this on a wizard or sorcerer: how exactly are you supposed to survive up close and personal with all this happening?

Edit: mixed up Quandrix with Silverquill

[swamp_slug]

That's not clearly stated in any way and Tasha's gave us a new Pact to choose, making that point entirely invalid.

Except the Pact of the Talisman is presented in the Optional Class Features section alongside Eldritch Versatility and more Invocations. Additionally Tasha's states the following under the Otherworldly Patron heading (emphasis mine):

At 1st level, a warlock gains the Otherworldly Patron feature, which offers you the choice of a subclass. The following options are available to you when making that choice: the Fathomless and the Genie.

I think that is pretty clear that the Patron is the subclass not the Pact Boon.

[ATHATH]

The Mage of Silverquill subclass is just bonkers. The level 1 feature (Silvery Barbs) is basically Heighten Spell, but with a cost of just a single spell slot of any level (even 1st) and your reaction instead of 3 sorcery points. You also get a free use of it once every long rest, AND you can choose not to use it unless your target would normally succeed on their saving throw, AND you get a refund on your spell slot/free usage if your target still succeeds on their save anyway, AND you get it two levels before a straight Sorcerer would get Heighten Spell, AND you also can get (or hand out) a minor buff from it occasionally. It's ludicrous regardless of whether or not you're going straight Wizard, straight Bard, or straight some other casting class with a Warlock 1 dip. What were they thinking when they wrote this?!

Also, a level 14 Mage of Silverquill Bard can pick up Spirit Guardians using Magical Secrets and then use Infusion of Eloquence on a casting of it, giving them a 15 ft. aura of "if you start your turn in this, you can't attack me (because you're charmed), no save" for the next minute, which is pretty busted (albeit funny).

[Protolisk]

Wait, people honestly thought that the Patron wasn't the subclass, when the level up chart pretty explicitly says Otherworldly Patron and Otherworldly Patron features at 1, 6, 10, and 14? How did this confusion even happen?

[ATHATH]

Also, Ancient Companions are proficient in CON saves, so a 20 CHA Paladin 6/Mage of Lorehold Warlock 1 can get a surprisingly tanky (due to Ancient Fortitude) companion that scales with their proficiency bonus out of their one level dip. Said dip can also give each member of the party (other than itself) 8+prof bonus THP between fights with no resource expenditure (other than a mild time one).

If you want to go all-in on that gimmick, you can cast Warding Bond on your Ancient Companion (although I don't know how it interacts with Ancient Fortitude, especially if the Ancient Companion is at exactly 1 health), add a Grave Cleric (or some adamantine armor that can somehow fit onto a statue) to your party who can negate critical hits on your stand Ancient Companion, take the Interception fighting style, and even given it a Periapt of Health. You'll, uh, also have to figure out how to keep it within 10 ft. of you in fights, though.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: By Your Threads Combined, I am CAPTAIN MODERATOR!

[stoutstien]

Waterdeep Merch's earlier point that maybe they should be looked at for 'internal' balance against each other primarily (as with Ravnica backgrounds) rather than at 5e as a whole, is a fair one I think. If you're running a Strixhaven campaign then chances are everyone's going to be grabbing a Strixhaven subclass since that's what the campaign is about.

As for if that's "good design" or not, I'm definitely of two minds. I think exploring different avenues of design (such as sharing subclasses) in a setting book where you can limit it to that setting isn't a bad idea, and if it works you can always expand on it later. Looking into that sort of thing works better in a not-major setting book (it's not FR or Eberron or Planescape or Dark Sun or Greyhawk, after all) than the next Lore Character's Grimoire of A Lot Of things for sure.

On the other hand, doesn't feel great for people who might want the book for subclasses to bring into their own campaigns and are let down by the change in design.

It doesn't put me off, necessarily, but I will say that I'm more interested in potential downtime rules, maybe some new monsters, magic items both major and minor, and other things I could use for my own potential arcane academy game.

They would be better off just to make a whole new MTG game that is compatible with 5e rather than potentially introducing something as well received as the first MTG book.

[Mitchellnotes]

Also, Ancient Companions are proficient in CON saves, so a 20 CHA Paladin 6/Mage of Lorehold Warlock 1 can get a surprisingly tanky (due to Ancient Fortitude) companion that scales with their proficiency bonus out of their one level dip. Said dip can also give each member of the party (other than itself) 8+prof bonus THP between fights with no resource expenditure (other than a mild time one).

If you want to go all-in on that gimmick, you can cast Warding Bond on your Ancient Companion (although I don't know how it interacts with Ancient Fortitude, especially if the Ancient Companion is at exactly 1 health), add a Grave Cleric (or some adamantine armor that can somehow fit onto a statue) to your party who can negate critical hits on your stand Ancient Companion, take the Interception fighting style, and even given it a Periapt of Health. You'll, uh, also have to figure out how to keep it within 10 ft. of you in fights, though.

Be a small character and ride your statue too!

[Waterdeep Merch]

They would be better off just to make a whole new MTG game that is compatible with 5e rather than potentially introducing something as well received as the first MTG book.
I'm coming at this as someone with a ton of third party materials, so I'm used to creating acceptable and banned lists for my games. A quick note at the front of some books and transparent communication from the dev team before fans buy them could alleviate this problem. Just say Strixhaven is more akin to an official 5e hack than a perfectly backwards compatible suite for other games. Own it, lean into it. Don't leave people surprised and upset for not expecting it, especially when player-only fans have a tendency with 5e to buy new material because they're starving for new content and often end up disappointed with the meager or overly specific offerings.

[Mitchellnotes]

Whoah whosh whoah, quandrix is nuts. Level 14, gain resist to slashing, piercing, and bludg damage? No set uses, nothing like that. Just always on? What were they thinking?

[Dork_Forge]

Except the Pact of the Talisman is presented in the Optional Class Features section alongside Eldritch Versatility and more Invocations. Additionally Tasha's states the following under the Otherworldly Patron heading (emphasis mine):


I think that is pretty clear that the Patron is the subclass not the Pact Boon.


Wait, people honestly thought that the Patron wasn't the subclass, when the level up chart pretty explicitly says Otherworldly Patron and Otherworldly Patron features at 1, 6, 10, and 14? How did this confusion even happen?

This is the last I'll say about this:

Do you know how many times the word subclass is used in the PHB? It isn't. Every class subclass has it's own thematic name.

Do you know how many times I've had to explain how Warlocks work because players from various backgrounds have asked what the subclass is or how it works? Literally dozens. You get the Pact Boon at the same level a lot of classes get subclasses and it defines the kind of Warlock you are in a big way.

For those of you that think it's entirely clear based on the actual text and not knowledge or assumptions it isn't the PDF is a mess that has no excuse for coming out of a company that makes books for a living. You don't need an editor, you just need someone to read the thing before hand. Having a large, bold, underlined section for how to use these subclasses on page one and then the same section in every. single. subclass. is terrible. It just is. The wording of the opening thing? Terrible.


or your warlock eschewed their patron’s usual boons for learning these more esoteric manifestations of power

The fluff of the Warlock is literally everything is a result of making a deal with your patron. The pact feature is called Pact Boon and is the only time that word is used in the entire class entry.

Literally all they needed to do is just throw a table up on page one of what is being replaced, it would have saved a bunch of text and cut the PDF down probably an entire page.

Minor editing thing that spiralled out of the way, I sincerely hope this doesn't see print.

There's no way it will be refined into a useable state before the book needs to be finalised and introducing something to completely jarring to the system needs a lot of time and a lot of playtesting if it happens at all. At least Ravnica made use of the existing Backgrounds framework, even if they burned the inside of said framework to the ground.

[jaappleton]

Big ups to Mark Hall for being both a great moderator and having a sense of humor. Love the Captain Planet reference.

More to the topic at hand: What’s the most broken thing we can do so far?

C’mon, it’s been hours, ya’ll have created something so broken it’d make a Tempest Theurge blush?

[brainface]

Mechanics aside, Prismari not being legal for bards is a huuuge miss. I'm copying random words from the name of prismari cards here:

Flamepainter, expressionist, muse, dean of expression, performer, fire dancer, sculptor, conductor

It's a VERY bardy school! Possibly the bardist! Why would they skip bard on it?

[diplomancer]

The one thing that jumped out at me was "Infusion of Eloquence". Cast a fireball, choose psychic damage, and everyone in the area of effect is Frightened by you. No Saving Throw. It just happens. Even if they make the Saving Throw on the Fireball. Sure, it lasts for only one turn, but this is bonkers.

[animewatcha]

The one thing that jumped out at me was "Infusion of Eloquence". Cast a fireball, choose psychic damage, and everyone in the area of effect is Frightened by you. No Saving Throw. It just happens. Even if they make the Saving Throw on the Fireball. Sure, it lasts for only one turn, but this is bonkers.

Anyway to make this look like it comes out of rear for the humor-cliche of someone farting and everyone trying to get away?

[Luccan]

I will grant that this is probably a better way of uniting the disparate magic classes than the guild backgrounds in Ravnica. Sharing subclass features like this will make Druid and Wizard Witherblooms feel more similar than Golgari Druids and Wizards. But I have to agree with the notion that an adjacent RPG would probably work better for them in that case. Especially since that would actually let them use the color system, which as an outsider seems fairly important. I also don't want to further overlap character building features in 5e. Honestly, in comparison to previous editions the differences between some spellcasting classes in 5th was already muddied even with just the PHB. Thematic overlap does not, IMO, need to get even stronger. This is still a class-based game and I don't want to open the 6e core books to be greeted with a point-buy system they refuse to fully commit to (I don't think they'll commit to it even if they basically do just that).

[ZiddyT]

The temp hp spam is crazy strong for a thorn build, and the warrior stuff just makes you a bladesinger with a pet. Yay! Potential game breaking synergy with a bladesinger actually, as thee way I read it implies that if u were a warlock lore hold and you took bladesinger to 6, you would get double EB spam on your action at lvl 12.

I'm not sure how you're interpreting that you would get double cantrips, unless you're assuming the ability to replace more than one attack with a cantrip, which has probably been argued to death already.

Arguably, though, you could say that you could attack as a bladesinger, cast a cantrip via extra attack, and technically say you used your action to cast a cantrip and make a second weapon attack via Lessons of the Past. Still leaves a bonus action for the ancient companion too, or TWF. Could make a melee Spirit Shroud really good.

[TheMango55]

More to the topic at hand: What’s the most broken thing we can do so far?


Level 14 Quandrix sorcerer and 6 Conquest Paladin seems pretty good. Great saving throw bonuses, BPS resistance, plus you can force a saving throw on creatures you hit so that they only do half damage for a round, meaning if they attack you it's only 1/4 damage.

And hey, you have 9th level spell slots with no 9th level spells, might as well cast Armor of Agathys at 9th level, it will be functionally 90 extra hit points against most damage you take and do 45 every time you are hit in melee.


Blade pact Hexblade also might have competition for best melee warlock build with Tome pact Lorehold, especially between level 6 and 12 (blade pact might catch up after lifedrinker). This is especially true if you are fighting several enemies.

Here's how I would build it:
Variant Human
8, 13, 15(+1), 8, 12, 15(+1)
Moderately armored (+dex)
Lorehold Warlock
Cantrips: BB, GFB, EB
Take tome with Shillelagh
Put your ancient companion in Warrior mode
+Charisma with first ASI
Maybe War Caster with your second.
+charisma again with third ASI
Resilient con with 4th
and Crusher (+con) with 5th

So in an average combat you'll probably want to cast spirit guardians first round and have your companion attack with your bonus action, second round cast Shillelagh and hit them with booming blade/GFB plus another melee attack with bonus d8 damage, then in future rounds do the multi-attack again and attack with your companion as a bonus action.

At level 12 by round 3 you would be doing 3d8+5 with your first attack, 2d8+5 second attack, 5d8 spirit guardians damage, and 1d8+6 from your companion, as well as possible 3d8 bonus damage from BB or GFB if their secondary effects trigger.

[animewatcha]

So coming at this UA from a 3.5e/PF sense... I don't know anything about 4e...

Artificer-Can fit into each of these colleges somehow lore-wise and have appropriate subclass
Barbarian-coulda fit a bloodrager knockoff or something from pathfinder. Barbarian that could get a few spells a la eldritch knight.
Bard- already covered in UA except for the Totally-Not-Bard college.
Cleric-Expansions of the basic domains that normally mesh well with arcane. Arcana, Knowledge. Or heck they could even be elemental-themed.
Druid-already covered in UA except they coulda fit in the other colleges somehow.
Fighter-1. Arcane Archer retooling here could be done with these colleges as being perfect background. Upping arcane shot to being what prof. bonus times per short/long rest instead of just switch. Eldritch knight origin with a class retooling a bit to fit the theme for each different college. Maybe Rune knight too. Also could have incorporated 3.5's duskblade (more focus on spellcasting than martial ). Duskblade in 3.5 had more spell slots in for spells levels 1-4 (had 5th but tied to sorcerer for slots) if you don't count for ability score bonus slots.
Monk-Expand four elements here and make the 'class features' changeable at a short rest/long rest. Spell-casting Enlightened Fist (3.5) could have been incorporated. Arcanopath Monk. Since 'words have power', adapting Truename monk.
Paladin-3.5 had alternative class features that helped paladin to be more toward 'diety of magic' like more spell slots or things not on their list. One of alternative class features would have been into the 'Totally-Not-Bard' college as the 3.5 paladin gained bard-inspiration abilities (instead of normal ones).
Ranger- Take the 3.5 Dragon Magazine Mystic Ranger (slightly more spell slots and small list of level 5 spells)+ the feat that lets prepare wizard spells in place of ranger spells. The 'Totally-Not-bard' college could use bard spells instead. And you now have rangers for any of these colleges.
Rogue-Expansion of Arcane Trickster rogue. For the 'Totally-Not-Bard' college, use appropriate 3.5 skill tricks and/or adapt the weapon/uncanny trickster prestige classes.
Sorcerer-Adapt it to colleges that haven't already. Since we have a Cleric-list sorcerer, could try to have a warlock-list sorcerer or bard-list sorcerer.
Warlock-It feels like Hexblade count have an origin of sorts here. With make the Curse be something like half-PB per SB/LG. Ditch the 6th level Spectre for a small spell slot list akin to Arcane trickster that is outside of (but can be used along with) warlock spellpact slots. Truenaming could also be incorporated.
Wizard-They already have subclass choices, but it seems like these colleges would be trying to study how to break the arcane/divine magic aspect down into formula. Enough for say a wizard to have arcane formula for spells via cleric domains. Example wizard-Life Domain - Casting Cure Wounds.

-edit- Everyone remember that the one of the MTG books has a magic item that allows cantrip casting for bonus action (I think you will need have cast a cantrip as action in first place). So work that into your shenanigans.

[Hael]

I'm not sure how you're interpreting that you would get double cantrips, unless you're assuming the ability to replace more than one attack with a cantrip, which has probably been argued to death already.

Arguably, though, you could say that you could attack as a bladesinger, cast a cantrip via extra attack, and technically say you used your action to cast a cantrip and make a second weapon attack via Lessons of the Past. Still leaves a bonus action for the ancient companion too, or TWF. Could make a melee Spirit Shroud really good.

Seems like an order of operation interaction in how to read it. If you take bladesinger first and take an attack action, you technically "cast a cantrip" during your attack action, so the loremaster stacks on top of that giving you 2 weapon attacks and a cantrip.

If you take the loremaster first and use your action to cast a spell (a cantrip), it then allows you to make one weapon attack as part of your action. Bladesinger then makes that two attacks, with one of them being a cantrip. Hence two cantrips and a weapon attack.

I think at the least the first option is the most RAW, b/c it always explicitly is the attack action and not the cast spell action, but the second seems arguable to me as well.. (lets not get into the usual Haste debate).

Either way two attacks and a cantrip, a pet, spirit guardians, and we haven't even clogged our BA yet. Thats pretty amazing action economy.

[rlc]

I will grant that this is probably a better way of uniting the disparate magic classes than the guild backgrounds in Ravnica. Sharing subclass features like this will make Druid and Wizard Witherblooms feel more similar than Golgari Druids and Wizards. But I have to agree with the notion that an adjacent RPG would probably work better for them in that case. Especially since that would actually let them use the color system, which as an outsider seems fairly important. I also don't want to further overlap character building features in 5e. Honestly, in comparison to previous editions the differences between some spellcasting classes in 5th was already muddied even with just the PHB. Thematic overlap does not, IMO, need to get even stronger. This is still a class-based game and I don't want to open the 6e core books to be greeted with a point-buy system they refuse to fully commit to (I don't think they'll commit to it even if they basically do just that).

it’s the return of the magic user class

[Cikomyr2]

Do I read correctly that the College of Lorehold wizard/warlock could, alongside a powerful vassal, cast Booming Blade/GFB and have a 2nd attack in addition?

Or is it that I could Toll the Dead/Melee Attack as part of the same action? At will?!

[GooeyChewie]

Prismari and Silverquill can be duct taped directly onto Ranger, Paladin, and Artificer without being too concerned about it. Prismari can be duct taped onto Arcane Trickster, it just isn't very good. Nothing can be duct taped to Eldritch Knight - Fighters get 5 subclass benefits, not 4.

By "duct taped," do you mean multi-classed into? Because Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Rogue and Fighter are not listed as options for any of the subclasses.

[animewatcha]

Do I read correctly that the College of Lorehold wizard/warlock could, alongside a powerful vassal, cast Booming Blade/GFB and have a 2nd attack in addition?

Or is it that I could Toll the Dead/Melee Attack as part of the same action? At will?!

Go Shadow blade into BB+Melee, then melee attack, then (with the MTG magic item) bonus action Boom+Melee and another melee. Heck if you are a warlock. EB+Bow then Bonus action EB+Bow. The UA says weapon attack. Doesn't restrict it to melee.

[werescythe]

I'm kind of meh about the subclasses. I'm not too excited for the classless subclasses, but I am glad we are getting more options for sorcerers. Kind of wish we had some for clerics though.

What I was hoping for (and sadly didn't get) were more spells (especially those that might be 5th level+ that deals acid damage, to make more use of order of scribes).

[Hael]

imo the most broken things are the no saving throw (fear/charm) effects as well as the no saving throw vulnerabilities on various classes.

Want to kill a BBEG? make him vulnerable to nonmagical slashing or piercing (even if he was immune before) and watch conjure animals and your melees shred him to pieces. It won't even take much more than the 'end of the next turn'

[Jakinbandw]

The Mage of Silverquill subclass is just bonkers. The level 1 feature (Silvery Barbs) is basically Heighten Spell, but with a cost of just a single spell slot of any level (even 1st) and your reaction instead of 3 sorcery points. You also get a free use of it once every long rest, AND you can choose not to use it unless your target would normally succeed on their saving throw, AND you get a refund on your spell slot/free usage if your target still succeeds on their save anyway, AND you get it two levels before a straight Sorcerer would get Heighten Spell, AND you also can get (or hand out) a minor buff from it occasionally. It's ludicrous regardless of whether or not you're going straight Wizard, straight Bard, or straight some other casting class with a Warlock 1 dip. What were they thinking when they wrote this?!

Also, a level 14 Mage of Silverquill Bard can pick up Spirit Guardians using Magical Secrets and then use Infusion of Eloquence on a casting of it, giving them a 15 ft. aura of "if you start your turn in this, you can't attack me (because you're charmed), no save" for the next minute, which is pretty busted (albeit funny).

I think I can one up you on this build idea. If you go with a Silverquill Warlock to 10, and then Conquest Paladin to 7, and you come from the (Color appropriate) Orzhov guild in Ravnica, you can cast spirit guardians, and then run up to people, and everyone near you is stuck still while they slowly die to your aura.

[Edit] Hit them with radiant Eldritch Bolts to deal even more damage and charm them so they can't even attack you!

[Protolisk]

Mechanics aside, Prismari not being legal for bards is a huuuge miss. I'm copying random words from the name of prismari cards here:


It's a VERY bardy school! Possibly the bardist! Why would they skip bard on it?

As for the way Prismari is currently written, I know of only 4 spells that would actually get benefit from the level 6 feature.

Heat Metal and Glyph of Warding are the ones you'll actually have access to by the time you get the feature. The others are Prismatic Spray and Wall. Considering the casting time for Glyph, and the level requirement for the Prismatic spells, the only feature the Bard could reliably use is the fire one, and thats it. If you want the other level 10 features (if you even choose it as a bard, because its that OR level 14) then you basically eschew the level 6 feature as well.

Say what you want, but it was a good idea to not give Bards Prismari, as currently written.

However, as to why they didn't design Prismari to just add these bonus onto spells without the need for the base spell needing to be cold/fire/lightning is another matter. Or, they could have written it completely different, so that Bards could use it off the bat and make so much more sense.

But as it is currently written, it would basically be a dead subclass for Bards.

[Kane0]

Alright, let's dig in then shall we.

Lorehold
- All three of these classes have subclass breaks starting right at level 1, so that's a problem from the start

- Lorehold spells is extra spells known which fit the theme of 'spirits' and 'learning from the dead'. Potent stuff for all three classes as free spells known, moreso for Bards and 'Locks than Wizards.

- Ancient companion sounds like a great fit for the 'learn from dead spirits' theme, but in actuality it's a combat pet. It's obviously strong being an extra meatshield for a full caster but also eats up bonus actions that bards and warlocks would otherwise be using pretty often so there is a potential balancing point I suppose (Wizards get a free pass because why wouldn't they). The healing you can give your meatshield is also pretty bonkers.
So yeah, this feels too strong. I think something like a familiar with the defensive reaction would have been fine, maybe lending an extra language or tool prof while summoned.

- Lessons of the Past again sounds like it's thematically aligned and in the case of Sage it is, but the other two are pure combat buffs. All fairly strong effects though, especially Warrior which makes you very Gishy

- War Echoes is a very solid reaction and pretty mechanically unique, but I don't see the connection to theme. Mixed feelings here.

- History's Whims appears disconnected from the theme, throwing in some Chronomancy in for some reason. Anyways mechanically it's probably a little too versatile and strong, really only held back by the use-again cost and not being able to choose the same effect twice in a row. At least make it use the bonus action each time to compete with your Pet or something.

Overall, the basic premise is solid but goes off in weird directions. Committing to either knowledge or gishing and dropping the chronomancy aspects would go a long way to balancing this out, because as is it's pretty much a bunch of everything stacked onto the most versatile classes in the game.

Prismari
- Elemental + Art is a cool thematic angle, but Bard isn't included? I can only assume that this is because this is a blasty subclass and Bards are historically not 'supposed' to be blasty... but if so that's very strange line in the sand to stick to at this point.

- Creative Skills is exactly what I was expecting with Lorehold, fits well apart from some odd choices on that list?

- Kinetic Artistry makes you exceedingly mobile and slippery with some very good extras thrown in, i'm not sure if the Bonus Action Dash can always be used and it's just the elemental effects that are LR limited or the entire thing. Either way, this is Diptastic for a Lock/Pally into Sorc or Arty/EK into Wiz.

- Favored Medium is a pretty standard damage resistance that is also floating, but also shares that to allies within 5' of you when you cast blasts using the same element. Potent stuff with no use limitation raises my eyebrow

- Focused Expression adds extra damage and a rider to any Fire, Cold or Lightning blasts you cast, again with no use limitation. This one looks much more fine though as the damage isn't much at this tier and only the save or no reactions is really a solid rider at this stage (but it doesn't counter legendary actions)

- Impeccable Physicality is pretty simple and straightforward which is honestly refreshing as I read through this, and doesn't appear to be gamebreaking

Overall, I don't mind this one. It's got the typical UA rough edges and I'd definitely give this one to bards but I can see this one making print if we can get around the 'different classes get subclasses at different points' conundrum.

Quandrix
- Mages only for the mathemeticians. Kinda sad that Warlocks aren't considered scholarly enough since that was dropped pre-release in favor of CHA, but whatever. This strikes me as very similar to the Geometer concept explored in previous editions.

- Quandrix spells are a bunch of very nice bonus known for both classes, but obviously Sorc benefits more than Wiz here. Either way Guidance is... well Guidance and the other freebies aren't no slouches either even if 1st level is skipped apart from Guiding Bolt (which can be paired nicely with Metamagic).

- Functions of Probability reminds me of Clockwork soul, but in this case every spell you cast nets you or an ally +1d6 to an attack or save or an enemy a penalty on the same with a save. That's Cleric/Bard levels of support with no use limitations other than spell slots.

- Velocity Shift wait wait wait, 'which it can choose to fail'? I thought we left that kind of wordplay behind in 3e, but I suppose of all places the math nerd would be the one to bring it back. I'm going on record as not liking it however. Anyways the ability itself seems fine, you can teleport a creature 30' using your reaction prof times per day with a save if unwilling. See? The wording isn't that hard.

- Null Equation applies a Ray of Enfeeblement type effect (shame it isn't built into some sort of Condition or something) as a rider when you damage someone, with the usual usage restrictions. This seems pretty solid and I like it.

- Quantum Tunneling is very strong with just the straight up resistance to B/P/S, not including the phasing through objects on top of that. The damage you take from this is pretty minimal and can be reduced or countered in a number of ways so yeah, this is broken with no limitations.

Overall the math angle feels a bit disjointed in the mechanics, probably because almost all of D&Ds mechanics come down to 'math' and so everything goes. I think being a little more specific in the theme would better inform the mechanics, plus the usual UA balance pass.

Silverquill
- Bard, Lock and Wiz makes sense. I could see an argument for Clerics too coem to think of it, but feeding their subclass considerations in I can understand would be a royal PITA. 'Language and writing' is a huge amount of ground to cover in one subclass, and has been done already (by Bard and Wizard subclasses no less).

- Eloquent Apprentice is a nice combination of extra spells and extra skills, seems about right

- Silvery Barbs starts us off strong with a reaction to force a reroll and if they pass the save an ally gets a reroll instead. It appears this stacks with advantage so yeah, potent stuff. At least it's use-limited but I don't know why the advantage/disadvantage mechanic wasn't used here.

- Inky shroud is the Shadow sorc darkness feature but better, with a free casting per LR and some damage thrown in for good measure. Remember when that was considered really good?

- Infusion of Eloquence lets you have psychic or radiant fireballs (and other blastS i guess) which I am all for, plus some extra damage thrown in for good measure. It's use limited but also gives you a rider, charmed being notably more funny than frightened because this only applies if the spell deals damage. Feels about the right power level.

- Word of Power imposes vulnerability as a rider to your first feature and a reaction to grant damage resistance to an ally at the cost of some psychic damage to yourself. The former is use limited but the latter is almost as strong as the phasing capstone of mathman. Yeah you take the half of the damage resisted but at this level that is something easily prepared for and dealt with.

Overall, I didn't hate this as much as I thought I would. It's still retreading thematic ground already walked for classes that have already been there and done that, but the mechanics themselves can probably be transplanted elsewhere once given the usual UA balance pass (level 1 rerolls especially, I reckon those should have been adv/disadv).

Witherbloom
- Druid and Warlock are an interesting combo, you have my interest. Flavor appears to be vaguely necromantic ('magic concerning life and death')

- Witherbloom spells are sort of meh for the druid but great for the Warlock. It's not quite the free healing that Celestial provides but these are free spells known.

- Essence Tap allows you to Healing Surge with your casting stat which is neat, or swap damage you deal to necrotic ignoring resistance. The latter not being restricted to spells is interesting, but this is use limited so not a great concern off the top of my head

- Witherbloom Brew is really good, especially compared to something like say the Arty Alchemist's mixtures. Prof bonus x healing (plus minor restore/resistance potions or poison (damage and condition) per day that can be stocked up to 24 hours is pretty damn good at this level

- Witherbloom adept is another thankfully simple one, +prof to healing or necrotic damage limited to one target once per turn. Maybe swap places with the level 6 feature?

- Withering Vortex is very nice, use limited but when you cast a spell and have it deal necrotic damage you or an ally heal half that dealt out. Not sure if I would actually use limit it if Essense Tap already is, though maybe that is relying on the fact that the current range of spells that natively deal Necrotic damage tend to be underwhelming for their level.

Overall, feels like a decent take on a necromancer concept that isn't undead focused despite the fact that the same ground has been covered already. A bit of polish and it could be fine.


All in all I think i'm more interested in the question of 'what is the best way to implement cross-class subclasses?' rather than 'what do you think of these subclasses?'
The easy way would be to start with chaining together classes that share subclass breakpoints, but that dramatically limits your options. Also is the question of multiclassing since those points aren't at equal places apart. Not an easy thing to tackle but I do find myself very interested in how it might be handled to facilitate more of these cross-class concepts (especially if we can re-engineer subclasses that already exist to cover more ground without reinventing the wheel).

[Arkhios]

Prismari
- Elemental + Art is a cool thematic angle, but Bard isn't included? I can only assume that this is because this is a blasty subclass and Bards are historically not 'supposed' to be blasty... but if so that's very strange line in the sand to stick to at this point.

It might be simply because bards really don't have spells that deal damage in any of those damage types.

[Amnestic]

Adding college-specific spells in the book would perhaps patch the hole and allow bards to be the Prismari that they should be.

Wouldn't even be the first case of subclass-specific spells since we had that with Dunamancy already.

[ZiddyT]

If you take the loremaster first and use your action to cast a spell (a cantrip), it then allows you to make one weapon attack as part of your action. Bladesinger then makes that two attacks, with one of them being a cantrip. Hence two cantrips and a weapon attack.

If you cast a Cantrip first, you're taking the "Cast a Spell" action, so even though you get to make a weapon attack from Lessons of the Past, you don't get Extra Attack because it requires you to have taken the "Attack" action. The most you could get is a cantrip and two weapon attacks as part of one action (or three if you cast a SCAGtrip).


Go Shadow blade into BB+Melee, then melee attack, then (with the MTG magic item) bonus action Boom+Melee and another melee. Heck if you are a warlock. EB+Bow then Bonus action EB+Bow. The UA says weapon attack. Doesn't restrict it to melee.

The UA does, however, specify that you get the extra weapon attack when you use your action to cast a cantrip, it would not trigger by casting a cantrip as a bonus action.
That said, I have been wanting to try out a Bladelock/singer that uses EB and a ranged weapon to make its attacks, rather than SCAGtrips and melee weapons.

It's a long road to viability, but toss in a couple levels of fighter and eventually you can action surge for two EBs/SCAGtrips, 4 extra melee/ranged weapon attacks, and whatever you can do with your bonus action (TWF with shadow blade, put up a high level spirit shroud, or hex). It's beautiful.

[rlc]

By "duct taped," do you mean multi-classed into? Because Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Rogue and Fighter are not listed as options for any of the subclasses.

I’m not trying to speak for anyone, but I’m sure it means, “if these other classes could also do that, it would be great and wouldn’t hurt anything.”

[MrStabby]

I like what they are trying to do. I am not sure it will work, but it is worth a try and I think it is a fantastic use of UA to get feedback and for people to both challenge the concept and the implementation. It is a gamble and might lead to nothing - but this kind of gamble is what I think UA should be about.


Big ups to Mark Hall for being both a great moderator and having a sense of humor. Love the Captain Planet reference.

More to the topic at hand: What’s the most broken thing we can do so far?

C’mon, it’s been hours, ya’ll have created something so broken it’d make a Tempest Theurge blush?

I think that just a straight Silverquil Bard/wizard looks really strong.

As a Cha focussed class you can really make the most out of the bonus proficiencies and the option to pick up sacred flame adds a damaging option to a class otherwise short on them. Not hugely overpowered but just nice.

Silvery barbs is looking crazy good and a great use of a level 1 spell slot.

Inky shroud gives you another spell and a version that deals damage, which is OK.

Infusion of eloquence is where it gets nuts... spells like wall of light up against a wall can trap enemies with the fear effect. They can't move towards you and must just sit there... turn after turn taking 4d8 damage. It is a big enough area of effect that you can get a lot of enemies in it and even if the shape isn't quite right for your room your ability to use it to make attacks is going to be very useful as well. And if an enemy might want to teleport out, they can, but a lot of teleportation spells require seeing the target. By my reading blindness doest stop line of sight (not an object or an effect blocking vision) whereas it could be argued that darkenss is.

Word of power is kind of crazy good as well. I would say that if you are going to be playing a this level then the wizard ability to get back a load of level 1 spell slots with arcane recovery becomes very attractive to keep using silvery barbs over and over again.

[jaappleton]

There’s several abilities in this playtest that rely on a damage type. There’s a few which let you fear or charm.

And some vanilla spell lists are somewhat lacking, regarding synergy with those damage types.

.....What happens when you include Dragonmark races, or Ravnica backgrounds, or both to that equation?

In the words of Michael Keaton’s Batman:
“COME ON! You want to get nuts? Let’s get nuts!”

[Cikomyr2]

Pact of the Chain warlock with the full healing invocation becomes a great tank suddenly with Witherbloom

[stoutstien]

Pact of the Chain warlock with the full healing invocation becomes a great tank suddenly with Witherbloom

To be fair it's pretty easy to build a celestial pack warlock that is one of the best tanks in the game already and A fantastic healer at that.

That's really my only problem with this concept is it doesn't really add much new other than some better action economy for some people but it makes the best options better.

[Kane0]

It might be simply because bards really don't have spells that deal damage in any of those damage types.

Yeah that could be it, but then you could just add a few bonus spells known to bridge that gap. Its definitely becoming common enough.

[jaappleton]

My personal favorite by this point is likely Silverquill Bard.

You have your Inspiration Dice already, but now get a feature which can negate a critical hit (HOW MANY THINGS CAN DO THAT?! Ok, a few, but still great to have) and empowers an ally. It costs a spell slot to use it again, yes, but I think it’s worth it in a lot of scenarios. Especially as you gain higher levels; Wizards still get so much mileage out of spells like Shield and Absorb Elements but Bards don’t have such reactionary spells. I dig this a lot.

And Deadly Despair at 14? Depending on party synergy you can devastate an enemy. Vulnerability to a damage type until the start of your next turn can add up very quickly. Double the smite damage of the Paladin, if the Swashbuckler has a Sunblade than all that damage is also radiant, anybody with Sunbeam can add more to the mix. It’s already a good ability, and the possibly party synergy with this is only icing on the cake.

[Woggle]

Alright, let's dig in then shall we.

Prismari
- Focused Expression adds extra damage and a rider to any Fire, Cold or Lightning blasts you cast, again with no use limitation. This one looks much more fine though as the damage isn't much at this tier and only the save or no reactions is really a solid rider at this stage (but it doesn't counter legendary actions)


I just want to note that I'm pretty sure the 10+ Prismari feature works with any damage you deal, regardless of type or source (doesn't have to be from a spell). It's just the rider effect is based off of the element chosen from your 6+ feature.

At least that's the way I read it. Quoted here:

"Once per turn when you deal damage to at least one target, you gain an additional effect determined by the damage type chosen for your Favored Medium feature:"

[Yakk]

Bard can choose from any option they qualify for. That means they could skip a level 1 feature instead (considering that those tend to be weak)

No. At level 3 they get the level 1 features, at level 6 they can only pick the level 6 feature, because they have the level 1 features already.

At level 14 they can pick a level 10 or 14.

[EggKookoo]

At level 14 they can pick a level 10 or 14.

Frankly, this confuses me.


When you reach certain levels, you might be eligible to choose from among multiple features in the subclass. When you reach such a point, you select one of these features for your character to gain. Unless otherwise specified, you can gain no more than one subclass feature at a time. For example, if you are a bard with the Mage of Lorehold subclass, at 14th level you gain your choice of either the War Echoes feature or the History’s Whims feature, but not both.

Why doesn't the bard get War Echoes at 10th and then History's Whims at 14th? If they're both competing 14th level features, why does War Echoes say 10+?

Edit: Oh, wait, I get it. Sorry...

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I do like is the amount of utility this gives Warlocks.

Most of what Warlocks got in 5e were centered solely around combat bonuses, and the number of non-combat spells they could cast were fairly limited in utility. Sure, you get things like Fly, but that's very short-sighted compared to most other full casters.

Which kinda sucks. Since they recharge on a Short Rest, they can easily afford to spam their spell slots out of combat to solve a problem, they just need access to those spells.

But instead, you had to spend your infinite-use invocations for an effect that might only come up a couple times a day (for instance, Mask of Many Faces).

What this allows us to do is make a Warlock that can pick their Invocations around their combat needs (like through EB), and then grab utility spells to cast out of combat to refresh as-needed.

A damn good setup, I'd say.

[Dork_Forge]

One thing I do like is the amount of utility this gives Warlocks.

Most of what Warlocks got in 5e were centered solely around combat bonuses, and the number of non-combat spells they could cast were fairly limited in utility. Sure, you get things like Fly, but that's very short-sighted compared to most other full casters.

Which kinda sucks. Since they recharge on a Short Rest, they can easily afford to spam their spell slots out of combat to solve a problem, they just need access to those spells.

But instead, you had to spend your infinite-use invocations for an effect that might only come up a couple times a day (for instance, Mask of Many Faces).

What this allows us to do is make a Warlock that can pick their Invocations around their combat needs (like through EB), and then grab utility spells to cast out of combat to refresh as-needed.

A damn good setup, I'd say.

Warlocks usually get their utilty through cantrips, invocations and boons. Getting utility from Pact Magic is nice but not ideal since they can easily find themselves out of slots, spamming short rests is not always accepted or even plausible/possible.

Do you find Warlocks lacking utility in general?

[Ettina]

This is the last I'll say about this:

Do you know how many times the word subclass is used in the PHB? It isn't. Every class subclass has it's own thematic name.

Do you know how many times I've had to explain how Warlocks work because players from various backgrounds have asked what the subclass is or how it works? Literally dozens. You get the Pact Boon at the same level a lot of classes get subclasses and it defines the kind of Warlock you are in a big way.

I can see newbies getting confused because newbies don't know much, but anyone who understands D&D 5e reasonably well should have absolutely no doubt that Pact Boons are not subclasses. I mean, just look at the class table! Every class table has repeated mentions of "(class term for subclasses) feature", including warlock. Pact Boon is mentioned in the warlock table once.

If you're confused whether Otherworldly Patron or Pact Boon is a subclass, that says more about you than WOTC.

[Dork_Forge]

I can see newbies getting confused because newbies don't know much, but anyone who understands D&D 5e reasonably well should have absolutely no doubt that Pact Boons are not subclasses. I mean, just look at the class table! Every class table has repeated mentions of "(class term for subclasses) feature", including warlock. Pact Boon is mentioned in the warlock table once.

If you're confused whether Otherworldly Patron or Pact Boon is a subclass, that says more about you than WOTC.

I have said multiple times that I never thought that was the case or was confused.

I also related very, very common confusion I have come across from players over the years. 5e has seen a huge boom of first time players and players coming back that haven't played in years, the majority of players aren't discussing in depth on forums or frankly that deep into mechanics a lot of the time. I've known many people that primarily enjoy the roleplay and just learn enough mechanics to get by, there's nothing wrong with that and being explicit costs WotC nothing and may even actually save precious page space.

[Ettina]

I have said multiple times that I never thought that was the case or was confused.

I also related very, very common confusion I have come across from players over the years. 5e has seen a huge boom of first time players and players coming back that haven't played in years, the majority of players aren't discussing in depth on forums or frankly that deep into mechanics a lot of the time. I've known many people that primarily enjoy the roleplay and just learn enough mechanics to get by, there's nothing wrong with that and being explicit costs WotC nothing and may even actually save precious page space.

They have been explicit, though. They've made it perfectly clear that Otherworldly Patron is the name for warlock subclasses. Pact Boon is just a class feature, no different from picking a fighting style.

[Telwar]

Tangential question - Since the Strixhaven cover has an owlfolk on the cover, do we know if this is where they, the rabbitpeople, and the faerie/hobgoblins are coming in? Maybe split between this and the Feywild adventure?

[quindraco]

By "duct taped," do you mean multi-classed into? Because Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, Rogue and Fighter are not listed as options for any of the subclasses.

I mean you can house-rule that Ranger, Paladin, and Artificer can take these colleges, and the rules don't spontaneously explode.

[Mitchellnotes]

They have been explicit, though. They've made it perfectly clear that Otherworldly Patron is the name for warlock subclasses. Pact Boon is just a class feature, no different from picking a fighting style.

Ehhh... while that may be technically correct, I think it could be argued pretty easily that the pact boon ends up having more of an impact on how a character plays than the patron in most instances. While it's true that lots of classes have features that may be more important than a subclass choice (spells for wizard, smiting for paladin, etc), I think warlocks are unique in that they have a specific choice in this feature whereas it is built in for others. To that end, I think while it is clear that the patron is the sub-class, I can easily see why there may be some question about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

To that end, I think while it is clear that the patron is the sub-class, I can easily see why there may be some question about it. Which is why I brought it up a few pages ago.

[ZRN]

I have said multiple times that I never thought that was the case or was confused.

I also related very, very common confusion I have come across from players over the years. 5e has seen a huge boom of first time players and players coming back that haven't played in years, the majority of players aren't discussing in depth on forums or frankly that deep into mechanics a lot of the time. I've known many people that primarily enjoy the roleplay and just learn enough mechanics to get by, there's nothing wrong with that and being explicit costs WotC nothing and may even actually save precious page space.

Yeah, come to think of it, it's kind of weird that this UA uses the term "subclass" with very little explanation ("a bard’s Bardic College, a wizard’s Arcane Tradition, and so on") when the PHB seems to go out of its way to avoid calling them subclasses.

This Strixhaven book isn't going to be AL-legal, is it? I can ignore this like the other unbalanced MTG stuff?

[animewatcha]

Warrior. If you use your action to cast a cantrip,
you can make one weapon attack as part of
that action. If that weapon attack hits, the
target takes an additional 1d8 radiant damage

If clarification is needed this badly on warlock patron and stuff, then in the survey, might as well include what kind of action they are talking about with this. As there is that 'cast a spell' action, bonus action (be it class feature or magic item), and also reaction action casting cantrip (through war caster).

[Man_Over_Game]

Warlocks usually get their utilty through cantrips, invocations and boons. Getting utility from Pact Magic is nice but not ideal since they can easily find themselves out of slots, spamming short rests is not always accepted or even plausible/possible.

Do you find Warlocks lacking utility in general?

The utility itself is fine, it's just to me there's just a mismatch between assigning limited resources to combat and rigid passive bonuses to utility in DnD.

If I pick up Beast Speech, I now have a permanent utility bonus. Thing is, would I need to use that more often than someone with Speak With Animals normally would? Could something like Magic Initiate solve this better?

But, on the flipside, a Druid could use that same spell slot for Charm Person or Fog Cloud, both spells that can serve a non-combat utility purpose.

Keeping utility on spell slots means you're staying versatile, instead of being perfect at doing this 1 thing and solve most problems any generalist could.
And since your invocations are open, you are putting your damage on things you're going to be spamming quickly in combat, which means that you aren't ever having to worry about casting too much utility before a big fight. That's the benefit of EB Builds: You can afford to spend your spell slots on anything else.

What this allows us is to put invocations on damage, spell slots on utility. Which I think is much more efficient, because invocations aren't adaptive, while damage doesn't need to be.
Basically, the "Perfect Generalist Warlock" that has some solid combat spells and great utility invocations...and then swapped.



That's what the Lorehold gives Warlocks. A better generalist.

[Mitchellnotes]

Which is why I brought it up a few pages ago.

Oh absolutely, my post was more to refute the comparison of the pact boons to the fighting style given how much more defining that choice is for a lock compared to other situations.

[ff7hero]

If clarification is needed this badly on warlock patron and stuff, then in the survey, might as well include what kind of action they are talking about with this. As there is that 'cast a spell' action, bonus action (be it class feature or magic item), and also reaction action casting cantrip (through war caster).

Don't forget Level 6+ Bladesingers casting a Cantrip as part of their Attack Action.

[Cikomyr2]

Ok. Hot take: the warrior "free attack with a cantrip" should be reworded.

Basically, the power converts a save-cantrip into an cantrip delivered with a weapon attack, with the cantrip effect only triggering if the attack reach.

This effectively bypass saving throws

[Kane0]

I could get behind that, but still against wizards/sorcerers/bards having pets that are just as good as the ones the Artificer and (tashas) Ranger get. Even Druid rubbed me the wrong way but at least that uses up wildshape as well. Warlock could still work fine if you continue to build on pact of the chain.

[verbatim]

Tangential question - Since the Strixhaven cover has an owlfolk on the cover, do we know if this is where they, the rabbitpeople, and the faerie/hobgoblins are coming in? Maybe split between this and the Feywild adventure?

and then presumably the next Core 5e bestiary. Tasha's added a lot of different MTG exclusive subclasses to Core 5e while intentionally leaving other things (dragonmarks, guilds, etc) out.

Presumably they intend to continue to use MTG books to experiment with new ideas and then selectively decide what to add to core via reprints in a future book.

[Dork_Forge]

and then presumably the next Core 5e bestiary. Tasha's added a lot of different MTG exclusive subclasses to Core 5e while intentionally leaving other things (dragonmarks, guilds, etc) out.

Presumably they intend to continue to use MTG books to experiment with new ideas and then selectively decide what to add to core via reprints in a future book.

Possible, but have races ever been reprinted in a core book?

[quindraco]

Ok. Hot take: the warrior "free attack with a cantrip" should be reworded.

Basically, the power converts a save-cantrip into an cantrip delivered with a weapon attack, with the cantrip effect only triggering if the attack reach.

This effectively bypass saving throws

What are you talking about? What saving throw is being bypassed? Can you give an example?

[Luccan]

Possible, but have races ever been reprinted in a core book?

Goliaths, Deep Gnomes, and I think Duergar have all received reprints in the past

[Kane0]

What are you talking about? What saving throw is being bypassed? Can you give an example?

Cikomyr2 means that instead of getting an extra weapon attack, the feature should allow you to deliver a save-based cantrip with a weapon attack, so the effect takes place when you hit with the weapon rather than requiring a saving throw from the target.

For example instead of casting ray of frost and then making a free longsword attack, you cast Frostbite and make a longsword attack as part of the casting, which deals damage and the disadvantage if you hit the target with a longsword attack.
Like, turning any cantrip into a SCAGtrip.

[diplomancer]

Ehhh... while that may be technically correct, I think it could be argued pretty easily that the pact boon ends up having more of an impact on how a character plays than the patron in most instances. While it's true that lots of classes have features that may be more important than a subclass choice (spells for wizard, smiting for paladin, etc), I think warlocks are unique in that they have a specific choice in this feature whereas it is built in for others. To that end, I think while it is clear that the patron is the sub-class, I can easily see why there may be some question about it.

When the PHB came out, I'd say that it was indeed in doubt, and that the boons+unlocked invocations had a greater impact on how a warlock plays than the Patrons. But with Xanathar, a book that, for players, basically is "new subclasses", it became clear that the Patron's the subclass. But PHB only? Not clear at all.

[jaappleton]

When the PHB came out, I'd say that it was indeed in doubt, and that the boons+unlocked invocations had a greater impact on how a warlock plays than the Patrons. But with Xanathar, a book that, for players, basically is "new subclasses", it became clear that the Patron's the subclass. But PHB only? Not clear at all.

I’ll agree with this.

[RSP]

When the PHB came out, I'd say that it was indeed in doubt, and that the boons+unlocked invocations had a greater impact on how a warlock plays than the Patrons. But with Xanathar, a book that, for players, basically is "new subclasses", it became clear that the Patron's the subclass. But PHB only? Not clear at all.

Not sure where people are getting confused. Pact Boon is clearly just a class ability. Patron is what aligns with every other class’s subclass.

If one of those things “grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level”, and the other is just a 3rd level feature; doesn’t the former clearly stand out as similar to every other subclass which uses the same wording?

I’m just not sure why this would be a “they need to be more explicit” thing.

[TheMango55]

Ok. Hot take: the warrior "free attack with a cantrip" should be reworded.

Basically, the power converts a save-cantrip into an cantrip delivered with a weapon attack, with the cantrip effect only triggering if the attack reach.

This effectively bypass saving throws

So if you used Toll the Dead and the enemy wasn’t damaged before you swing your sword, would you get d8s because it wasn’t damaged prior to your attack, or d12s because it was just damaged by your sword?

[diplomancer]

Not sure where people are getting confused. Pact Boon is clearly just a class ability. Patron is what aligns with every other class’s subclass.

If one of those things “grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level”, and the other is just a 3rd level feature; doesn’t the former clearly stand out as similar to every other subclass which uses the same wording?

I’m just not sure why this would be a “they need to be more explicit” thing.

Except a Pact Boon grants you features (optional features, true, but still "play style-defining" ones) at every level you have an invocation based on your pact boon. Again, looking at PHB only, it matters far more, for your role in the party, whether you take Blade, Chain or Tome, than whether you take Fiend, Archfey, or Great Old One.

[Segev]

Speaking as somebody who entered a Pact Boon into a homebrew contest for subclasses, I can see both sides of the argument. I will say that the Pact Boon is not a "subclass" in the sense that the UA is clearly using it, because the UA gives features at various levels, while you pick your Pact Boon only at level 3. Getting Invocations to advance it doesn't mean you have subclass features at the levels you pick them up.

[Dork_Forge]

Speaking as somebody who entered a Pact Boon into a homebrew contest for subclasses, I can see both sides of the argument. I will say that the Pact Boon is not a "subclass" in the sense that the UA is clearly using it, because the UA gives features at various levels, while you pick your Pact Boon only at level 3. Getting Invocations to advance it doesn't mean you have subclass features at the levels you pick them up.

I think any confusion in this regard would be more: is it my patron or my patron and my pact?

TBH the cludgy writing in the first place is not encouraging, mechanics wording can be tightened up and that's standard, but there's no reason that document should be that much of a mess.

[PhantomSoul]

TBH the cludgy writing in the first place is not encouraging, mechanics wording can be tightened up and that's standard, but there's no reason that document should be that much of a mess.

Maybe WotC is going to use spam's "style filter (https://josephsteinberg.com/why-scammers-make-spelling-and-grammar-mistakes/)" to reach its demographic as a new marketing strategy?

[ZRN]

Not sure where people are getting confused. Pact Boon is clearly just a class ability. Patron is what aligns with every other class’s subclass.

If one of those things “grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level”, and the other is just a 3rd level feature; doesn’t the former clearly stand out as similar to every other subclass which uses the same wording?

I’m just not sure why this would be a “they need to be more explicit” thing.

They need to be more explicit because they coyly avoided calling subclasses subclasses through the whole PHB and now have to figure out how to talk about them without confusing less rules-oriented players. They get some slack here because it's a UA, but introducing a new very important technical term and then forcing the players/DM to guess what it means from a list of two examples is just asking for trouble. They don't even SAY "a subclass is the thing you get early on that has recurring benefits at fixed levels;" they just say, "a bard’s Bardic College, a wizard’s Arcane Tradition, and so on."

If I'm a DM and a player shows me his Archfey Witherbloom Warlock, and demands I point out where in the book it says that the patron is the subclass, I want to be able to do so. The game is complex enough to run; it doesn't need a test of your powers of inference just to build a character.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The Strixhaven subclasses seem fine for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards.

I think players of Bards will just skip the Bard eligible subclasses.....only receiving 3 of 4 subclass abilities and with nothing to improve their Bardic Inspiration,(as other bard subclasses often receive), is going to encourage the player of Bards to look elsewhere for their subclass.

Either Bards need to get all 4 of the Strixhaven subclass abilities for Lorenold and Quill subclasses or the level 6 abilities needs to include something for Bards alone...perhaps a Bardic Inspiration boost that auto increases in power at 10th or 14th level.

As for Druids, as much as a Prismari Druid sounds cool, and Witherbloom is the Artificers's Alchemist Subclass with less free spells, neither of these subclasses match the sheer power that previously published subclasses have.

Similarly to Bards, something needs to be added to both Subclasses that boosts Druids. An Elemental Wildshape form for Prismari seems appropriate....who doesn't want to transform into a Flaming Moose that charges forward on a wave of water?

For Witherbloom I would add an ability for the Druid to brew a potion that allows someone else to use the Druid's Wildshape ability or an Alter Self spell. The potions can last 24 hours, like the other Witherbloom concoctions, but the "Poly Juice Potion" requires the Druid to expend a Wildshape use, at the moment of imbibition, for the Magic to work.

[Amnestic]

If I'm a DM and a player shows me his Archfey Witherbloom Warlock, and demands I point out where in the book it says that the patron is the subclass, I want to be able to do so. The game is complex enough to run; it doesn't need a test of your powers of inference just to build a character.

Respectfully, any player who earnestly tries to tell you that their patron isn't the warlock subclass but their pact is, is taking the piss and deserves to be treated as such. Pact Boons don't progress new features as you gain levels, Patrons do. Pact Boons don't have an entry at the end of the class description, Patrons do, just like every other class format with their subclasses.

The table on page 7 of Xanathar's specifically calls them "subclasses" and includes the Hexblade in the list if you want something to point to directly, but I cannot imagine entertaining a player trying to BS their way into double-subclassing a warlock with "it doesn't specify explicitly in the PHB".

[ZRN]

The Strixhaven subclasses seem fine for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards.


Are they really fine for sorcerers, though?

Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind were rightly considered way more powerful than previous sorcerer subclasses almost entirely because they got bonus spells. Both Witherbloom and Quandrix get (very good) bonus spells, AND way better other subclass benefits.

Let's say I want to play a Dr. Manhattan "mathemagician" sorcerer. Do I play the Clockwork Soul and get the ability to negate advantage/disadvantage, some expensive temp HP bubbles, and eventually a once/day Cube of Moderate Healing, or do I play a Quandrix sorcerer and get guidance, guiding bolt, free bardic inspiration/cutting words on EVERY spell cast, reaction teleports on anyone who tries to come at me, and eventually Permarage with Passwall?

Let's say I want to play a divine sorcerer. Do I play a Divine Soul and "get" to spend 1/3 of my lifetime spells known learning stuff like Greater Restoration? Or do I just play a Witherbloom sorcerer and get those spells and more for free on top of my normal spells, and also get to cast necrotic fireballs that cut through spell resistance?

If we're making the argument that even the Tasha's sorcerer subclasses are underpowered and we need better subclasses like these to balance the scales, um, I guess make that argument, but honestly I think this stands as strong evidence that one of the underappreciated problems with sorcerers is how much their subclasses sucked. Even the Tasha's stuff doesn't hold a candle to these Strixhaven ones, and the consensus here seems to be that these Strixhaven ones are barely worth considering for most non-sorcerer classes that can access them.

[ZRN]

Respectfully, any player who earnestly tries to tell you that their patron isn't the warlock subclass but their pact is, is taking the piss and deserves to be treated as such. Pact Boons don't progress new features as you gain levels, Patrons do. Pact Boons don't have an entry at the end of the class description, Patrons do, just like every other class format with their subclasses.

The table on page 7 of Xanathar's specifically calls them "subclasses" and includes the Hexblade in the list if you want something to point to directly, but I cannot imagine entertaining a player trying to BS their way into double-subclassing a warlock with "it doesn't specify explicitly in the PHB".

I'm kind of impressed that so many people are willing to argue for so many pages AGAINST the designers writing the rules clearly.

[Dork_Forge]

Respectfully, any player who earnestly tries to tell you that their patron isn't the warlock subclass but their pact is, is taking the piss and deserves to be treated as such. Pact Boons don't progress new features as you gain levels, Patrons do. Pact Boons don't have an entry at the end of the class description, Patrons do, just like every other class format with their subclasses.

The table on page 7 of Xanathar's specifically calls them "subclasses" and includes the Hexblade in the list if you want something to point to directly, but I cannot imagine entertaining a player trying to BS their way into double-subclassing a warlock with "it doesn't specify explicitly in the PHB".

Relying on a supplement book a person may or may not have shouldn't be required, part of the problem here is that Warlocks are... unique. They are the only caster to use the Pact Magic style of casting, which makes it more believable that they are exception to other things. The fact that Pact Boons are such a hugely defining feature (arguably a lot moreso for how you play than a patron) makes this much more of a problem, they have far more weight than a Fighting Style or jsut about any other in class choice you find in other classes.


I'm kind of impressed that so many people are willing to argue for so many pages AGAINST the designers writing the rules clearly.

Right?

[Mitchellnotes]

... the consensus here seems to be that these Strixhaven ones are barely worth considering for most non-sorcerer classes that can access them.

I'm not convinced that that is the consensus. Overall, the Strixhaven subclasses are very strong, and like you said, exceptionally strong for some classes. I think it is fair to say that the bard doesn't benefit as much, but some of the features included are just wild. There is a disparity in terms of how strong they are across the board, but overall, these classes are overpowered.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not convinced that that is the consensus. Overall, the Strixhaven subclasses are very strong, and like you said, exceptionally strong for some classes. I think it is fair to say that the bard doesn't benefit as much, but some of the features included are just wild. There is a disparity in terms of how strong they are across the board, but overall, these classes are overpowered.

Agreed that they're overpowered, for the Bard though I think it's important to note that a lot of options compete with bonus action for inspiration. Since they aren't giving new ways to spend it, it'd be easy for a Bard to end up wasting inspiration die (especially after 5th).

[Amnestic]

I'm kind of impressed that so many people are willing to argue for so many pages AGAINST the designers writing the rules clearly.

I'm impressed that's what you took away from my post.

Yes, they should be clear. That doesn't mean we should entertain players asking for Archfey Witherbloom warlocks and saying "point to me where it says I can't do this" as an active challenge as if they're going to win one over on the DM and get to double up on subclasses.

[micahaphone]

Are they really fine for sorcerers, though?

Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind were rightly considered way more powerful than previous sorcerer subclasses almost entirely because they got bonus spells. Both Witherbloom and Quandrix get (very good) bonus spells, AND way better other subclass benefits.

Let's say I want to play a Dr. Manhattan "mathemagician" sorcerer. Do I play the Clockwork Soul and get the ability to negate advantage/disadvantage, some expensive temp HP bubbles, and eventually a once/day Cube of Moderate Healing, or do I play a Quandrix sorcerer and get guidance, guiding bolt, free bardic inspiration/cutting words on EVERY spell cast, reaction teleports on anyone who tries to come at me, and eventually Permarage with Passwall?

Let's say I want to play a divine sorcerer. Do I play a Divine Soul and "get" to spend 1/3 of my lifetime spells known learning stuff like Greater Restoration? Or do I just play a Witherbloom sorcerer and get those spells and more for free on top of my normal spells, and also get to cast necrotic fireballs that cut through spell resistance?

If we're making the argument that even the Tasha's sorcerer subclasses are underpowered and we need better subclasses like these to balance the scales, um, I guess make that argument, but honestly I think this stands as strong evidence that one of the underappreciated problems with sorcerers is how much their subclasses sucked. Even the Tasha's stuff doesn't hold a candle to these Strixhaven ones, and the consensus here seems to be that these Strixhaven ones are barely worth considering for most non-sorcerer classes that can access them.

I'm okay with this discrepancy because these subclasses are meant for a caster-only setting, not just any game like the Tasha options. Just like how (anecdotally) I don't know any DMs who would allow using the Ravnica backgrounds in a non-Ravnica game (and those are worse in terms of balance - Ravnica games will probably still have martials in the party). So I'm more focused on how strong are these options in relation to each other over the rest of the game's published subclasses.

[ZRN]

I'm okay with this discrepancy because these subclasses are meant for a caster-only setting, not just any game like the Tasha options. Just like how (anecdotally) I don't know any DMs who would allow using the Ravnica backgrounds in a non-Ravnica game (and those are worse in terms of balance - Ravnica games will probably still have martials in the party). So I'm more focused on how strong are these options in relation to each other over the rest of the game's published subclasses.

Fair enough. Within those constraints, though, doesn't a Witherbloom or Quandrix sorcerer pull pretty far ahead of the competition (of other subclasses and/or base classes)? Like, wouldn't a Quandrix sorcerer basically just be better than a Quandrix wizard? The wizard gets spell preparation and the sorcerer gets metamagic... the only real way of avoiding this kind of issue with cross-class subclasses would be to not include a bunch of spells known in any of the sorcerer ones, I'd think.

[quindraco]

Fair enough. Within those constraints, though, doesn't a Witherbloom or Quandrix sorcerer pull pretty far ahead of the competition (of other subclasses and/or base classes)? Like, wouldn't a Quandrix sorcerer basically just be better than a Quandrix wizard? The wizard gets spell preparation and the sorcerer gets metamagic... the only real way of avoiding this kind of issue with cross-class subclasses would be to not include a bunch of spells known in any of the sorcerer ones, I'd think.

It depends heavily on level, but yes. And there are no Witherbloom Sorcerers. The two at hand for Sorc vs Wiz are Prismari and Quandrix.
Assuming Sorcerers and Wizards are otherwise balanced, Quandrix is the one with the greater difference in impact:

At level 1, the Sorcer is a *lot* better. From levels 2-9, the Sorcerer is better, because the additional spells known are an actual benefit for them. At level 10, the Wizard gets Null Equation, and the Sorc gets nothing, so it depends on your opinion of Null Equation, which I think is a garbage ability. I'd ballpark it at the Sorcerer still being better. Then at L14, both the Sorc and the Wiz get Quantum Tunneling, so no change there, and at L18, the Sorc gets Null Equation, which basically an insult. So in my opinion, Quandrix is just way better on Sorcerers.

If you disagree and think Null Equation is the best thing since sliced bread, Wizards are better from levels 10 to 17.

Prismari is less imbalanced, due to granting no spells known. Sorcs are still better at L1, then presumably equal from 2-9, then Wizards are better from 10-17, and then equal from 18-20.

[RSP]

Except a Pact Boon grants you features (optional features, true, but still "play style-defining" ones) at every level you have an invocation based on your pact boon. Again, looking at PHB only, it matters far more, for your role in the party, whether you take Blade, Chain or Tome, than whether you take Fiend, Archfey, or Great Old One.

So do Fighting Styles and Metamagics, yet I don’t see any confusion there.

And I think you’re over stating how “play style-defining” the Pact Boons are. None of the Boons dictate anything about playstyle. You could have a Tomelock in melee using Shallaleigh; or have a Bladelock who is a blaster and caster first, and only uses their Pact Weapon as a back up.

Again, I don’t see where the confusion comes from, or that WotC did something wrong here.

[Dork_Forge]

So do Fighting Styles and Metamagics, yet I don’t see any confusion there.

And I think you’re over stating how “play style-defining” the Pact Boons are. None of the Boons dictate anything about playstyle. You could have a Tomelock in melee using Shallaleigh; or have a Bladelock who is a blaster and caster first, and only uses their Pact Weapon as a back up.

Again, I don’t see where the confusion comes from, or that WotC did something wrong here.

The only time a fighting style is multilevel is the Champion because they eventually get to pick two. Metamagic is nice for the Sorcerer, but in no way impacts them as much as a Pact (they get multiple choices instead of one, the Sorcerer has the option of burning SP for slots instead).

The Tomelock could only use Shillelagh because of their pact.

The only way to get a nonstandard familiar from FF is with Pact of the Chain, which also enhances the use of that familiar.

...I guess you could have a blasting first bladelock but that seems very odd. Why would you sell your soul for something you don't really use? Regardless they can only create or bond to a weapon because of their pact. Edge cases aside people choose a pact because it facilitates what they want and whilst you could go the tomelock route for a melee Warlock, you'd also not be able to access supporting invocations for that style as a result of that choice.

Do you really think a fighting style is comparative to that level of impact?

And to be clear, the confusion comes from the active avoidance of the word subclass in the PHB and unique design of the Warlock. If you've never had a player get confused about how Warlocks work then great for you, but the confusion does happen and there is visible reasoning for it.

Aside from that, you don't find it cludgy that in a prototype mechanic like this, they had that section written poorly, and then repeated differently in ever single subclass?

[PhantomSoul]

Why would you sell your soul for something you don't really use?

...Oh, see, you actually sell your soul for something else at Warlock level 1, and unknowingly subscribed to a lootcrate that only arrives two levels later. (Your choice of lootcrate types apparently lets you choose from other subscriber perks based on level, despite apparently having unsubscribed from the lootcrate once you discovered it at level 3.)

[Dork_Forge]

...Oh, see, you actually sell your soul for something else at Warlock level 1, and unknowingly subscribed to a lootcrate that only arrives two levels later. (Your choice of lootcrate types apparently lets you choose from other subscriber perks based on level, despite apparently having unsubscribed from the lootcrate once you discovered it at level 3.)

...do I get a limited edition POP figure and a magnet?

[RSP]

The only time a fighting style is multilevel is the Champion because they eventually get to pick two. Metamagic is nice for the Sorcerer, but in no way impacts them as much as a Pact (they get multiple choices instead of one, the Sorcerer has the option of burning SP for slots instead).

Pact Boons aren’t multilevel; I think now you’re confusing them with Invocations.

Sorc’s (pre-Tasha’s at least) only got a new Metamagic at 10 when most campaigns are either over or ending soon. In that sense, Metamagic is at least as defining an ability for a PC as Pact Boon.

Chain gives a non-standard choice for FF: that is hardly “playstyle defining”. Tome gives three Cantrips. Blade gives a magic weapon that can do some cool stuff, but it’ll always be suboptimal to EB.

Here's the difference between Warlock, Fighter and Bard:

“Otherworldly Patron

At 1st level, you have struck a bargain with an otherworldly being of your choice, such as The Fiend, which is detailed at the end of the class description. Your choice grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level.”

“Martial Archetype

At 3rd Level, you choose an archetype that you strive to emulate in your Combat styles and Techniques, such as Champion. The archetype you choose grants you features at 3rd Level and again at 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th level.”

“Bard College

At 3rd Level, you delve into the advanced Techniques of a Bard College of your choice, such as the College of Lore. Your choice grants you features at 3rd Level and again at 6th and 14th level.”

I mean, those all read pretty similar if trying to figure out if Patron is the subclass, as opposed to a feature that very much does not mention multilevel features added on during later levels, never mind the representation on the class level chart.

[Dork_Forge]

Pact Boons aren’t multilevel; I think now you’re confusing them with Invocations.

There is no confusion on my part, I'm follwoing the train of conversation. You replied to Diplomancer when they said:


Except a Pact Boon grants you features (optional features, true, but still "play style-defining" ones) at every level you have an invocation based on your pact boon. Again, looking at PHB only, it matters far more, for your role in the party, whether you take Blade, Chain or Tome, than whether you take Fiend, Archfey, or Great Old One.

My reply was in that same vein since you answered what they said with talk about Fighting Styles.


Sorc’s (pre-Tasha’s at least) only got a new Metamagic at 10 when most campaigns are either over or ending soon. In that sense, Metamagic is at least as defining an ability for a PC as Pact Boon.

Sorcerer's are defined by their spells, Warlocks don't cast leveled spells as much as full casters so they are more defined by their other choices. A Sorcerer gets two metamagic features, that will have little to do with each other, they aren't defining anything of the playstyle because they're just modifying the spells chosen. Two Sorcerers can take Twinned Spell, yet one could be a blaster and the other support specialist, the metamagic defines nothing on its own (if at all outside of the identity of the Sorcerer class as a whole, which is entirely different and irrelevant here).


Chain gives a non-standard choice for FF: that is hardly “playstyle defining”. Tome gives three Cantrips. Blade gives a magic weapon that can do some cool stuff, but it’ll always be suboptimal to EB.

Becoming the person in the party that scopes out dungeons ahead of time with their invisible and capable familiar isn't defining? Post Tasha's the familiars are also fantastic combat choices (spell save DC for poisons).

Tome gets three cantrips that aren't on the Warlock list, 3 cantrips is suge a huge infusion of casting that I'm not sure how oyu could argue it wouldn't define them as a more casting orientated Warlock?

Whether or not you think EB is always better than being a Bladelock is frankly irrelevant, something doesn't have to be the best damage option in all scenarios to be defining. I summon a weapon out of thin air is a pretty defining feature in 5e only remotely found elsewhere in the Eldritch Knight.


Here's the difference between Warlock, Fighter and Bard:

“Otherworldly Patron

At 1st level, you have struck a bargain with an otherworldly being of your choice, such as The Fiend, which is detailed at the end of the class description. Your choice grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level.”

“Martial Archetype

At 3rd Level, you choose an archetype that you strive to emulate in your Combat styles and Techniques, such as Champion. The archetype you choose grants you features at 3rd Level and again at 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th level.”

“Bard College

At 3rd Level, you delve into the advanced Techniques of a Bard College of your choice, such as the College of Lore. Your choice grants you features at 3rd Level and again at 6th and 14th level.”

I mean, those all read pretty similar if trying to figure out if Patron is the subclass, as opposed to a feature that very much does not mention multilevel features added on during later levels, never mind the representation on the class level chart.

I really don't understand why this needs repeating so much, but sure.

-Pact Boons are oddly defining for a main class feature choice (Where as something like metamagic and fighting styles are more... boosts to what you're already doing in general)

-The fact you get it at a common subclass level doesn't help

-IMX frankly players aren't doing side by side comparisons about game content, they get confused and ask the DM, either because they don't get it or they don't have time to get it on their own because people are busy.

In this UA the text clearly states that the Warlock eskews the boons they normally get from their patron. Do you honestly not see why the UA saying that they are forgoing their boon might be confusing when the only time the word is used is Pact Boon?

I also really don't understand why this is so contested, so you don't personally have the issue, people on the forum likely won't have a lot of issues, we aren't the average player. WotC making their content clear and concise is only a good thing, if it helps prevent confusion from some players at a cost of literally nothing then why not?

Whether or not you or someone else doesn't see it doesn't really matter, because it clearly exists. It literally only came up in this thread organically, not as a meta criticism of their writing style.

[Hawk7915]

I'm not convinced that that is the consensus. Overall, the Strixhaven subclasses are very strong, and like you said, exceptionally strong for some classes. I think it is fair to say that the bard doesn't benefit as much, but some of the features included are just wild. There is a disparity in terms of how strong they are across the board, but overall, these classes are overpowered.

Yeah this. I wanted to reply to add to the consensus. The thing is they're a mixed bag but in general - I think these are more OP than not.

Lorehold: This pet is insane, and getting it at level 1 for Warlocks or level 2 for Wizards is a big deal for low-level play. Worst case scenario this is a free body on the field (resummonable on a short rest at no cost) that grants THPs that rival Inspiring Leader with a lot less set-up required. Eventually, the THPs and the utility of the pet start to fall off a bit (although Bonus Action attacks off the spirit is strong for the normally BA-poor Wizard or Warlock), but by the time this starts falling off you get the "War Echoes" feature (which is like Grave Cleric's "Path to the Grave" on steroids and available many more times per day) and the very fun History's Whim. There's also some nice damage boosts for blasty mages by just having the Sage around for +1d8 force damage on a spell 1/turn, or the option for more tricky builds (like an archer bard getting to Vicious Mockery + Shoot, or a Pact of the Blade Lorehold 'Lock stabbing someone and also Booming Blade-ing them). Also also - the bonus spells are mostly garbage (it's like 3 or 4 good and useful spells out of the 12 they get from 1-9), but free spells are free spells. Critically, these aren't just options to learn - they're straight up extra spells known, something no other Warlock patron can do. Arcane Eye, Spirit Guardians, and Destructive Wave are also legitimately great spells, and Sacred Flame is a big upgrade to the Bard's usually awful arsenal of at-will damage. I think this is the best non-Hexblade Warlock which is saying a lot, and among the best Wizard and Bard schools out there too (still a bit behind Eloquence and Divination but, again, that's saying a lot for two arguably OP subclasses).

Prismari: On the other hand, this one is terrible. No bonus spells is blah, the performing arts school not being open to bards is awful. Their 1st level feature rewards the weakest classes in the game for getting into melee which is bad design, and the sixth level feature sounds neat but...if the enemy is dishing out fire damage, they're probably also immune/resistant to fire, so having to blast them with a fireball that does nothing to try to get a one-turn resist off is pretty crummy. This lags behind the Dragon Sorcerer and Evoker Wizard as far as elemental damage builds go even with the slightly-less-useless 10th and 14th features, which isn't a good place to be. Probably needs a total rework.

Quandrix: This subclass requires some creativity to use but I think overall I'd rate it as "pretty good". Once again, the free spells are a great boon especially to Sorcerers. Starting at 1 - Guiding Bolt + Guidance are great spells, normally cleric exclusive. Diminishing Function and Supplemental Function are free numbers (as long as you have spells to chuck out), and in a world of bounded accuracy matter as much at 20th as they do at 1st - +1d6 (average 3) to an attack or save on a friend is huge especially when you've already got Guiding Bolt for advantage. Rogues and Paladins will love having you help them with their homework. -1d6 attack is also strong even it allows a save, and can allow you to solo an enemy for a while by peppering them with a spell for Diminish, then Shield yourself. Especially fun is sharing the love - Hideous Laughter monster A and also debuff Monster B? Haste the Fighter while tossing out Supplements to the Rogue or Bard? Notable for later mayhem - this isn't once per turn or during your turn. You need reactions that target a creature - but it adds a bit more oomph to your Counterspells :smallamused:. Next, Velocity Shift is a bit more DM and terrain dependent but it's a reaction that targets a rare and usually weak save. Fastball special friend fighter is the easiest and most reliable use of this, but you can also yeet enemies off cliffs or into lava when they try to move. That may not happen more than once once your DM sees you can do it - but you can also toss them back into a hazard they're trying to escape, including the Spike Growth you now conveniently have on your class spell list. The hits keep coming for a mathy, tricky mage. Once again, I'm not sure this is more powerful than Divination Wizard or Clockwork Soul Sorcerer, but it's very good and competitive with them which is pretty good in my book.

Silverquill: The power of Lore/Eloquence Bards and Divination/Chronurgy Wizards is being able to debuff or impose failure rate on saving throws, a thing normally hard to do in 5E. This lets you do that 1/long rest too, and while it's less reliable than the Bard or Divination Wizard and less uses than Chrono, you actually don't lose the use of it until you actually make someone fail which then will let a friend succeed. You can also use spell slots to do this more which is strong at high levels (although I wonder - do you not lose the spell slot if they don't fail?). By itself, that already gives you an ability that rivals the best Bard and Wizard schools and trumps the utility of every non-Hexblade Warlock 1 feature (and you also got two skill proficiencies and your choice of two of the best non-Eldritch Blast cantrips in the game). Inky Shroud gives the Eldritch Sight + Darkness trick to Bards and Wizards 1/long rest and adds a damage component to it. I wish there were more uses, but it's neat. The big deal is the 10th level feature, especially for Blaster wizards - being able to convert their big spells like Fireball or Chain Lightning to Radiant or Psychic damage with no-save Fear or Charm on it (since monsters are saving for half and thus definitely taking damage) is insanity. The 14th feature is a neat capstone to really pile on the misery with their Silvery Barbs. Overall, I think this has not enough to offer the average Bard or Warlock (especially with Lorehold right there), but it looks like a great subclass and a great Wizard class especially.

Witherbloom: I'm a bit colder on this, mostly since it's late-game features seem to lack some oomph. I also don't love the Toxifying potion compared to the rest which disappoints me. But if you want to play a support-y Warlock or Druid that can also soak tons of pain and deal heavy necrotic damage when needed, this does seem to be just better than Celestial Warlock or Dreams/Shepherd Druid in that roll (although Shepherd Druid is also a mighty summoner so they're pretty even). Again for Warlocks, getting 10 additional spells known is a massive, massive boost to their utility even if several are sorta niche.

Overall though, that's 3 that I think rival the best/most OP subclasses in the game, 1 that seems like a solid, fun take on the "Alchemist" /"Witch" archetype, and one that's a useless trainwreck for an overall pretty good selection.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Are they really fine for sorcerers, though?

Clockwork Soul and Aberrant Mind were rightly considered way more powerful than previous sorcerer subclasses almost entirely because they got bonus spells. Both Witherbloom and Quandrix get (very good) bonus spells, AND way better other subclass benefits.

As written now, I'm not sure that Prismari and Quandrix are more powerful than either the Clockwork Soul nor Aberrant Mind subclass.

Prismari is about on par with the Storm Sorcerer until it receives it's awesome capstone...which on a Sorcerer is 18th level. A Wizard Prismari succeeds on Dex Saving Throws for seven levels, the Sorcerer only for three levels. 🥺

Quandrix is a strong subclass, however, as currently written Quandrix can not retrain the bonus spells on the Quandrix list. This fact alone, elevates the TCoE Sorcerer subclasses over the Strixhaven Sorcerer options.

Honestly I wish all the subclass options were open to all Sorcerers, Wizards and Warlocks...instead of being class gated in the current manner.

[Jakinbandw]

Quick question: Would removing the level 6 option from silverquill and replacing it with the level 10 feature break things too badly on a bard chassis? I kinda want to play it but at the same time the level 6 feature is completely useless compared to the Lore Bards 2 extra spells.

I was planning to go eloquence or lore, but this seemed interesting so I was talking to my GM about dropping the level 6 feature and they said they'd think about it. I'm curious to hear what people here think about it.

[RSP]

There is no confusion on my part, I'm follwoing the train of conversation. You replied to Diplomancer when they said…

Right: but you inferred they were multilevel, hence the comment on you confusing them with Invocations. Pact Boons are not “multilevel”, Invocations are gained at various levels, some of which have level and Boon requirements, though they are still the Invocations feature and not the Pact Boon feature.




Sorcerer's are defined by their spells, Warlocks don't cast leveled spells as much as full casters so they are more defined by their other choices. A Sorcerer gets two metamagic features, that will have little to do with each other, they aren't defining anything of the playstyle because they're just modifying the spells chosen. Two Sorcerers can take Twinned Spell, yet one could be a blaster and the other support specialist, the metamagic defines nothing on its own (if at all outside of the identity of the Sorcerer class as a whole, which is entirely different and irrelevant here).

A 5th level Sorc gets 6 spells: they absolutely need to consider their Metamagic when picking those spells, or they’ve completely wasted their class-defining ability. That is most definitely a more playstyle defining feature than getting three cantrips or an Imp or a summonable magic weapon.



…I summon a weapon out of thin air is a pretty defining feature in 5e only remotely found elsewhere in the Eldritch Knight.

No. Being able to summon a weapon out of thin air does not define a character’s playstyle. Picking Archery as your FS basically means you’ll be using ranged weapons 99% of the campaign. That is a defined playstyle. Likewise, taking Quicken can help a Blaster Sorc multiple times throughout the adventuring day in their playstyle of being a Blaster.

Even just looking at Warlock, taking Misty Visions and Guise of Many Faces is more defining of a playstyle than the Pact Boons. Invocations matter way more than Boons in terms of playstyle.



I really don't understand why this needs repeating so much, but sure.

-Pact Boons are oddly defining for a main class feature choice (Where as something like metamagic and fighting styles are more... boosts to what you're already doing in general)

You dismiss Metamagic and FS as “what you’re already doing” yet any choices of any class features will be made with the PC’s playstyle in mind: if you’re taking Blade as your Pact Boon, you need to prepare for being on the frontline even before you reach level 3, or it’s a wasted pick.

And, technically, for the Fighter at least, Fighting Style is the only one of those three that is chosen prior to the character having any defined playstyle (as it comes at level 1), so in that sense, it is not “what you’re already doing” but a significant choice towards how you plan to play your character.

[Hael]

Overall, I think this has not enough to offer the average Bard or Warlock (especially with Lorehold right there), but it looks like a great subclass and a great Wizard class especially.


Agreed with most of what you write, but Silverquill seems like a crazy strong Bard class as well. It gives them damage that rivals Warlocks, without sacrificing CC (thanks to the uber OP no save 10th lvl feature).

But yes, Silverquill and Lorehold are not going to see the light of day as written (as they're broken). I'm pretty sure they will also have to rework all the features that 'give vulnerability' as thats a mechanism that breaks 5e bounded accuracy and hitpoint calculations (going from a BBEG that is immune to something like fire to vulnerable to it is just not ok).

The big let down imo is Prismari, as thats a missed opportunity to really give elemental casters something fun. I'd be fine if there were different paths there as well (a cold path, a fire path, a lightning path etc), but as it stands all of the features are dull and uninteresting and mechanically weak. We were looking for something that 'augments' spells of a certain elemental variety. Not random crap like better dex saves..

[Mitchellnotes]

That is most definitely a more playstyle defining feature than getting three cantrips or an Imp or a summonable magic weapon.

No. Being able to summon a weapon out of thin air does not define a character’s playstyle. Picking Archery as your FS basically means you’ll be using ranged weapons 99% of the campaign. That is a defined playstyle. Likewise, taking Quicken can help a Blaster Sorc multiple times throughout the adventuring day in their playstyle of being a Blaster.

And, technically, for the Fighter at least, Fighting Style is the only one of those three that is chosen prior to the character having any defined playstyle (as it comes at level 1), so in that sense, it is not “what you’re already doing” but a significant choice towards how you plan to play your character.

The pact boon is what provides a warlock either the option to 1) focus on melee 2) pick up multiple cantrips from any list and ritual cast from any list, 3) get a very good pet or 4) provide more general purpose party support. Yes, technically it is invocations tied to that feature that do it, but the choice of pact enables it. This will determine if a warlock is more likely to focus on eldritch blast or melee, or what sort of support they can provide. A fighting style certainly impacts a build for fighter, but i think you are underselling the pact boon?

[RSP]

The pact boon is what provides a warlock either the option to 1) focus on melee 2) pick up multiple cantrips from any list and ritual cast from any list, 3) get a very good pet or 4) provide more general purpose party support. Yes, technically it is invocations tied to that feature that do it, but the choice of pact enables it. This will determine if a warlock is more likely to focus on eldritch blast or melee, or what sort of support they can provide. A fighting style certainly impacts a build for fighter, but i think you are underselling the pact boon?

1) you can have that option from other things (Multiclass or Shallaleigh), either way you need more than the Boon to pull it off.
2) essentially a slightly better Magic Initiate. The Ritual casting comes from Invocations, a separate class feature (unless the concern is Invocations are also being confused with subclasses?)
3) a very good pet is not a playstyle.
4) not sure what Boon this references.

A FS in and of itself does a lot to define how the PC will play, particularly with GWF, TWF, Dueling and Archery.

What you appear to be saying here is: if you build a Warlock using Invocations and Pact Boon a certain way, those choices will dictate your playstyle. And that’s a true statement, but goes above and beyond just Pact Boons, which is what was being discussed as confusing people it, by itself, was a Subclass.

You can select Chain or Tome and be in melee. You can select PoB and be a blaster. None of these choices in and of themself are even as important as Invocation choices, much less reach the point of being confused with a subclass.

[Kane0]

4) not sure what Boon this references.

Talisman, from Tasha's.

[diplomancer]

You can select PoB and be a blaster.

Well, you can do a lot of things. But:
1- for that matter, you can choose Archery style and choose to be in melee all the time. You're just wasting your feature. I have a Ranger in my party right now that chose Two Weapon Fighting and still is at range most of the time.
2- have you ever actually seen it done? Someone that chooses by-the-book Pact of the Blade (not the suggested homebrew options that transfer some Hexblade benefits to it) and does NOT try to Gish?

Furthermore: if you go back to early discussions of Warlocks, you'd see a lot more about the decision to be Chain, Tome, or Blade, than the decision to be Fiend, Archfey, or Great Old One. At most, you'd see the recommendation that IF you want to be Pact of the Blade, Fiend would be the best choice (note the order of choices; Pact, THEN Patron). You would NOT see the same thing with a Fighter and his fighting styles vs subclasses. This changed as more impactful Patron choices were added to Warlocks (which makes me wonder; were the PHB Patrons relatively underpowered because the impact of Boons+Invocations was fresher in the developer's minds? While in Xanathar they were being compared more to other "full subclasses"?)

[Kane0]

*Raises hand*

Current character in the party I am DMing is a Blade Pact Hexblade with Sentinel, he took Agonising Blast and often spends combat blasting EB and concentrating on a spell like hunger of hadar or summon aberration.

For the record, ive often seen the 'lock described as a weird class not just because of their different casting but also because they get two subclasses plus invocations as an extra point of customization that other classes dont. So there is some merit to the misconception that pacts are considered subclasses by metric other than pick a, b or c and get features at levels x, y and z cause warlocks are weird

[diplomancer]

*Raises hand*

Current character in the party I am DMing is a Blade Pact Hexblade with Sentinel, he took Agonising Blast and often spends combat blasting EB and concentrating on a spell like hunger of hadar or summon aberration.
Has he picked up Thirsting Blade (AFB, the Invocation that gives two attacks)? Does he use his weapons with at least some frequency? If yes, it's like the Ranger in my party I've mentioned, who chose versatility over specialization. If he's pretty much exclusively a blaster, I can understand the Hexblade (medium armor + shields+ Hexblade Curse is just that good), but it's hard to justify Blade Pact.


For the record, ive often seen the 'lock described as a weird class not just because of their different casting but also because they get two subclasses plus invocations as an extra point of customization that other classes dont. So there is some merit to the misconception that pacts are considered subclasses by metric other than pick a, b or c and get features at levels x, y and z cause warlocks are weird

Pretty much this; it's not as simple as to say "Pact Boon is like a Fighting Style". It's definitely closer to a subclass (specially with the boon-specific invocations) than to a Fighting Style.

[Rafaelfras]

Oh absolutely, my post was more to refute the comparison of the pact boons to the fighting style given how much more defining that choice is for a lock compared to other situations.
Fighting style is very defining for fighter. Archery and protection will change your play style way more than your subclass




Pretty much this; it's not as simple as to say "Pact Boon is like a Fighting Style". It's definitely closer to a subclass (specially with the boon-specific invocations) than to a Fighting Style.

The same way there is a bunch of talents that you may or may not pick depending on your fighting style (like sharp shooter and great weapon master)

[Mitchellnotes]

1) you can have that option from other things (Multiclass or Shallaleigh), either way you need more than the Boon to pull it off.
2) essentially a slightly better Magic Initiate. The Ritual casting comes from Invocations, a separate class feature (unless the concern is Invocations are also being confused with subclasses?)
3) a very good pet is not a playstyle.
4) not sure what Boon this references

You seem to be intentionally ignoring that invocations that allow these things are predicated on selecting the boon. Yes, you can melee without blade or tome, but those both enable the playstyle and in how that functions. A tome lock is going to melee differently than a blade pact, which seems to fit the argument that it can define the playstyle. Both can easily stay at range as well, but that is kind of the warlock playstyle overall.

For example, i am going to argue on 3) that it does because it implies that the warlock is going to stay at range with a pet that is likely going to focus on debuffs due to investment of the master. The response to that is going to be that investment of the master is an invocation and that that is a separate argument. A similar argument would be that metamagic doesnt assist in defining a sorcs playstyle because all metamagic uses sorcery points which is a separate class feature.

[diplomancer]

Fighting style is very defining for fighter. Archery and protection will change your play style way more than your subclass



The same way there is a bunch of talents that you may or may not pick depending on your fighting style (like sharp shooter and great weapon master)

I choose Defense. Am I a tanker or a bruiser (or switching between these roles as I progress in levels?)

[RSP]

You seem to be intentionally ignoring that invocations that allow these things are predicated on selecting the boon. Yes, you can melee without blade or tome, but those both enable the playstyle and in how that functions. A tome lock is going to melee differently than a blade pact, which seems to fit the argument that it can define the playstyle. Both can easily stay at range as well, but that is kind of the warlock playstyle overall.

Not ignoring anything, pointing out that now the “confusion” seems to stem not from Pact Boon, a 3rd level class feature, but the combination of PBS and Invocations, a 2nd level feature that adds choices as levels progress.

The idea that it was “made too confusing by WotC” by clearly having a Patron that is written like every other subclass, both in its description and as it appears on the Warlock Class Table; because two separate class features allow character build choices is not a good argument. All the evidence is there that Patrons are the subclass. Anyone who was somehow confused into thinking they weren’t would need to take about 2 mins to look at the class setup and/or see how other classes work.

Anyone who opted not to do that, that’s on them. If someone looked at Warlock, decided Pact Boons are the subclass and walked away, did so not because WotC wrote the class poorly, but, rather, because that person didn’t want to take a minute or two to understand the class.



For example, i am going to argue on 3) that it does because it implies that the warlock is going to stay at range with a pet that is likely going to focus on debuffs due to investment of the master. The response to that is going to be that investment of the master is an invocation and that that is a separate argument. A similar argument would be that metamagic doesnt assist in defining a sorcs playstyle because all metamagic uses sorcery points which is a separate class feature.

That’s an argument. I’d say the Warlock in question chose Chain for the FF pet, but that they already were going to be an at range blaster as their playstyle (which was probably the case levels 1 & 2, if played, even without having the PB). I’ve not seen the Familiar touch ability used, but my understanding is it very much puts the familiar at risk. If familiar dies, it has no impact on playstyle until it’s resummoned.

As for Sorc and Metamagic: a) I’m not arguing Metamagic is a subclass, just countering that it’s at least as impactful a choice as Pact Boon is on a Warlock, so no, there’s no reason to argue Metamagic and Sorc points with me.

If my argument was “Metamagic is the confusing non-subclass, not Pact Boon”, you could then make that argument; but that’s not what I’m saying.

Metamagic is more defining than Pact Boons, which is the counter to the “it’s confusing because PBs are so impactful” argument.

[RSP]

I choose Defense. Am I a tanker or a bruiser (or switching between these roles as I progress in levels?)

Defense is similar to taking any of the Pact Boons: it’s a nice benefit that doesn’t dictate playstyle.

See how taking Archery is more impactful on playstyle? You now need to sacrifice +2 to hit in order to play a different way than Ranged Weapon Attacks. That’s a big sacrifice in 5e’s bounded accuracy as bonuses to hits aren’t common.

The Fighter needs to say: “Do I want to attack at +8 or do I want to attack at +6?” That is a detriment to changing playstyle.

The Warlock who chose Chain isn’t going “hmm, do I lose +2 on my attack to do something other than EB?” Nothing has roped them into a playstyle based on the choice of Pact of Chain.

[Rafaelfras]

I choose Defense. Am I a tanker or a bruiser (or switching between these roles as I progress in levels?)
Your sure ain't an archer 🏹



Defense is similar to taking any of the Pact Boons: it’s a nice benefit that doesn’t dictate playstyle.

See how taking Archery is more impactful on playstyle? You now need to sacrifice +2 to hit in order to play a different way than Ranged Weapon Attacks. That’s a big sacrifice in 5e’s bounded accuracy as bonuses to hits aren’t common.

The Fighter needs to say: “Do I want to attack at +8 or do I want to attack at +6?” That is a detriment to changing playstyle.

The Warlock who chose Chain isn’t going “hmm, do I lose +2 on my attack to do something other than EB?” Nothing has roped them into a playstyle based on the choice of Pact of Chain.

exactly
A tome lock and a chain lock can play exactly the same way, the chain lock could even take ritual caster and become even closer. But a fey and a fiend will have access to vas different abilities and spells

[Mitchellnotes]

All the evidence is there that Patrons are the subclass. Anyone who was somehow confused into thinking they weren’t would need to take about 2 mins to look at the class setup and/or see how other classes work.

I think this is the point of misunderstanding. I dont think anyone is saying its not clear that patrons are a subclass choice, rather more that warlocks have 2 features that at least are similar to subclasses. It would not hurt to clarify here specifically what these classes replace as opposed to just saying "sub-class."

Further, i think you are underselling differences between tome and chain. While they can play similarly in that they could both stay at ranged and use cantrips, thats like saying wizards are going to play similarly because they all use spells. Don't forget, there are other pillars of play. It is true that blade pact is the extreme outlier here and there wouldnt likely be this conversation without it. Choosing blade pact likely means that that character is going to focus on melee and is going to shape other decisions as they pertain to combat encounters (invocation and spell selection and likely even patron choice)

Long story short, yes, i think it is clear what the warlock subclasses ate but i think it is also worth being more clear given how the warlock functions in particular.

[RSP]

I think this is the point of misunderstanding. I dont think anyone is saying its not clear that patrons are a subclass choice, rather more that warlocks have 2 features that at least are similar to subclasses. It would not hurt to clarify here specifically what these classes replace as opposed to just saying "sub-class."

I’m pretty sure some are saying the confusion is PBs is subclass, not Patron.



Further, i think you are underselling differences between tome and chain. While they can play similarly in that they could both stay at ranged and use cantrips, thats like saying wizards are going to play similarly because they all use spells. Don't forget, there are other pillars of play. It is true that blade pact is the extreme outlier here and there wouldnt likely be this conversation without it. Choosing blade pact likely means that that character is going to focus on melee and is going to shape other decisions as they pertain to combat encounters (invocation and spell selection and likely even patron choice)

Long story short, yes, i think it is clear what the warlock subclasses ate but i think it is also worth being more clear given how the warlock functions in particular.

No, I’m not. Each pick of PBs grants certain advantages, but it doesn’t determine a playstyle. A Bladelock can still use EB, and I’ve seen it argued many times on these forums that PoB is just a backup to when enemies close in and you can’t blast as effectively. As you stated, neither Tome nor Chain sets a particular style.

None of those punish the PC for stepping out of a particular playstyle like the FS can: none impose -2 to attack, or damage.

That is why FS is a more impactful decision on playstyle than PBs are.

[Mitchellnotes]

No, I’m not. Each pick of PBs grants certain advantages, but it doesn’t determine a playstyle. A Bladelock can still use EB, and I’ve seen it argued many times on these forums that PoB is just a backup to when enemies close in and you can’t blast as effectively. As you stated, neither Tome nor Chain sets a particular style.

None of those punish the PC for stepping out of a particular playstyle like the FS can: none impose -2 to attack, or damage.

That is why FS is a more impactful decision on playstyle than PBs are.

I see you focusing on melee locks going ranged which has more to do with how good eldritch blast is than anything else (hence bards and sorcs dipping warlock 2 for it). Tomelocks can go into melee, but will likely do it using shillelagh and a scagtrip, which i think is pretty clearly a different playstyle than bladelocks getting sn extra attack and extra +cha to damage. Yes, they can also go ranged pretty easily, but again that is EB being really good for low investment. If it isnt playstyle defining, can you build a chainlock (or talisman) that focuses on melee? No need to go into a full build, but i'd like to see how that would function to show that any warlock could viably do both ranged EB and function in melee.

Edit: just to add, there are fighting styles that one would need for a build. Thrown and unarmed builds dont work without the fighting styles or some other way to make it work. Other fighting styles make concepts better, but they could still work without the fighting style.

[diplomancer]

Your sure ain't an archer 🏹

Not a specialized archer, perhaps. But I could be a Dex based tank, maybe a Fighter/Rogue multiclass, that mostly uses a Rapier + Shield in melee, and still uses a Longbow with some frequency. I've already mentioned the Ranger in my party that took 2 weapon fighting style and still uses a longbow about half the time in combat (and maybe even more often from now on, since he recently found a magic longbow, and still does not have any magic melee weapon).


I see you focusing on melee locks going ranged which has more to do with how good eldritch blast is than anything else (hence bards and sorcs dipping warlock 2 for it). Tomelocks can go into melee, but will likely do it using shillelagh and a scagtrip, which i think is pretty clearly a different playstyle than bladelocks getting sn extra attack and extra +cha to damage. Yes, they can also go ranged pretty easily, but again that is EB being really good for low investment. If it isnt playstyle defining, can you build a chainlock (or talisman) that focuses on melee? No need to go into a full build, but i'd like to see how that would function to show that any warlock could viably do both ranged EB and function in melee.

The three boons are:
Tome-> Casty Warlock
Chain-> Sneaky Warlock
Blade-> Fighty Warlock

Those are 3 different "game archetypes", specially for a grognard like me, and therefore, in my opinion, this is far more relevant than whether you do a lot of damage with a bow or with a sword. Opinions obviously differ.

[GooeyChewie]

The idea that it was “made too confusing by WotC” by clearly having a Patron that is written like every other subclass, both in its description and as it appears on the Warlock Class Table; because two separate class features allow character build choices is not a good argument. All the evidence is there that Patrons are the subclass. Anyone who was somehow confused into thinking they weren’t would need to take about 2 mins to look at the class setup and/or see how other classes work.

The thing that WotC made confusing isn't the Warlock class; it's the fact that this UA uses a term which is not actually defined in the PHB. Up until now, it made absolutely no difference whether you considered a Warlock's subclass to be purely the Patron or a combination of the Patron and the Pact Boon. Players apparently had different views on that point for years, with no ill effects. I think the real solution here is to include in the UA feedback that the use of the term "subclass" in this UA is not totally clear, and they should list out what they mean for each class.

I do believe the intent of the UA is to replace the Patron and not the Pact Boon. In the book, they should specify.

[Jakinbandw]

The thing that WotC made confusing isn't the Warlock class; it's the fact that this UA uses a term which is not actually defined in the PHB. Up until now, it made absolutely no difference whether you considered a Warlock's subclass to be purely the Patron or a combination of the Patron and the Pact Boon. Players apparently had different views on that point for years, with no ill effects. I think the real solution here is to include in the UA feedback that the use of the term "subclass" in this UA is not totally clear, and they should list out what they mean for each class.

I do believe the intent of the UA is to replace the Patron and not the Pact Boon. In the book, they should specify.

It DOES. It specifically says that it replaces a warlocks Patron. It's not the books fault if people choose not to read the rules.

[Dork_Forge]

It DOES. It specifically says that it replaces a warlocks Patron. It's not the books fault if people choose not to read the rules.

It's not people's fault if the rules are horribly written, you make a central section or per subclass section not both. You clearly write your intent in unambiguous language, using the word boon is not unambiguous, as various posters going back and forth should have made clear, again this issue came up because of how it's worded.

This wouldn't be a problem if they hadn't gone to such great lengths to avoid the metaterm 'subclass' in the PHB, but they did. Then they use a word that is used once in th Warlock subclass that very, very clearly suggests that you would swap your boon (either on it's own or in addition to you patron, it doesn't matter).

Literally all the had to do was insert a table what was being replaced for each class. This would have cut down a significant amount of text from the PDF and improved clarity. And to be blunt, this book comes out in five months, they aren't inspiring confidence with this. UAs aren't internal drafts they're public facing playtest documents that should read like a professional wrote them.

[RSP]

Not a specialized archer, perhaps. But I could be a Dex based tank, maybe a Fighter/Rogue multiclass, that mostly uses a Rapier + Shield in melee, and still uses a Longbow with some frequency. I've already mentioned the Ranger in my party that took 2 weapon fighting style and still uses a longbow about half the time in combat (and maybe even more often from now on, since he recently found a magic longbow, and still does not have any magic melee weapon).



The three boons are:
Tome-> Casty Warlock
Chain-> Sneaky Warlock
Blade-> Fighty Warlock

Those are 3 different "game archetypes", specially for a grognard like me, and therefore, in my opinion, this is far more relevant than whether you do a lot of damage with a bow or with a sword. Opinions obviously differ.

Odd how you throw in multiclass options for a build with FSs, and acknowledge that you can have different play styles even with what you choose out of FS. But with Warlock, if you pick Chain, you absolutely have to be a sneaky Warlock.

Odd that. Really this isn’t so much a discussion on WotC and how they wrote a class up, it’s that you seem rather inflexible in your thinking of what can be done with a PC after a Player chooses a Pact Boon. And, I’m assuming, that inflexibility is what’s leading you to thinking PBs must be the subclass since you’ve decided they must be played a certain way.

[RSP]

The thing that WotC made confusing isn't the Warlock class; it's the fact that this UA uses a term which is not actually defined in the PHB.

It’s not necessarily a “game term.” We all know what a “subclass” is based off of its normal meaning.

True, whatever class you wish to pick out could have many subclasses in this meaning; but I’m still not sure why Warlock would stand out for that, as shown, other classes have more playstyle-influencing choices.

[diplomancer]

Odd how you throw in multiclass options for a build with FSs, and acknowledge that you can have different play styles even with what you choose out of FS. But with Warlock, if you pick Chain, you absolutely have to be a sneaky Warlock.

Odd that. Really this isn’t so much a discussion on WotC and how they wrote a class up, it’s that you seem rather inflexible in your thinking of what can be done with a PC after a Player chooses a Pact Boon. And, I’m assuming, that inflexibility is what’s leading you to thinking PBs must be the subclass since you’ve decided they must be played a certain way.

You misunderstand me. I'm absolutely sure that Patron is the subclass. Have been since Xanathar came out (though before I thought it was something of the combination of Patron+Boon, warlocks being "the weird class").

My point is that a difference between an Archer and a Swordsman (even the name, fighting style, shows that this is about only one play pillar. It has zero effect otherwise), is far smaller than the difference between a Gish and a Scout. And if you pick the boon that gives you an invisible familiar and you DON'T use it for scouting/sneaking, that's an option I suppose, but you are wasting a lot of what your boon gives you.

[Mitchellnotes]

It’s not necessarily a “game term.” We all know what a “subclass” is based off of its normal meaning.

True, whatever class you wish to pick out could have many subclasses in this meaning; but I’m still not sure why Warlock would stand out for that, as shown, other classes have more playstyle-influencing choices.

I don't know that the assertion that other classes have more playstyle-influencing choices is true. What other class has features that are specifically "gate keepered" behind a class choice like invocations are with pact boon? Using the fighting style example, there aren't any later features a fighter gets that require a dpecific fighting style.

I'm still interested in your idea for a melee chain or talisman pact warlock to show that boons dont influence playstyle.

[Jakinbandw]

It's not people's fault if the rules are horribly written, you make a central section or per subclass section not both. You clearly write your intent in unambiguous language, using the word boon is not unambiguous, as various posters going back and forth should have made clear, again this issue came up because of how it's worded.

I don't see any use of the word boon in these subclasses

https://i.ibb.co/V2nkyPH/Screenshot-20210612-113908-Acrobat-for-Samsung.png

[Dork_Forge]

I don't see any use of the word boon in these subclasses

https://ibb.co/gzqc1Bv

https://ibb.co/gzqc1Bv

The word boon is used twice in the document, once in an ability (which is eh) and in the Using These Subclasses section at the beginning of the document... what you'd read if you were trying to figure out how these things work for the frist time which doubles down on how badly written this document is.

https://i.ibb.co/5RRndLh/received-390721915648064.webp

[Jakinbandw]

The word boon is used twice in the document, once in an ability (which is eh) and in the Using These Subclasses section at the beginning of the document... what you'd read if you were trying to figure out how these things work for the frist time which doubles down on how badly written this document is.

https://i.ibb.co/5RRndLh/received-390721915648064.webp

But that's not mechanics, that's fluff.

[RSP]

My point is that a difference between an Archer and a Swordsman (even the name, fighting style, shows that this is about only one play pillar. It has zero effect otherwise), is far smaller than the difference between a Gish and a Scout. And if you pick the boon that gives you an invisible familiar and you DON'T use it for scouting/sneaking, that's an option I suppose, but you are wasting a lot of what your boon gives you.

Can’t the exact same thing be said of Archery FS? If you don’t use it in combat (as opposed to Chain and the exploration pillar), you’re wasting what your FS gives you?

Yes, Chain gives a cool familiar, but it doesn’t do horribly more than a regular familiar can. And just like a regular familiar, it needs to stay alive to be effective. That’s not really a “playstyle” though, any more than a Wizard with a rat is now a “scout”. Yes, it can be used that way, but it’s not a necessity to be used that way.

Archery FS is more of a dictated playstyle because there’s actual penalties to not using it. It’s more integral to the way a PC approaches the Combat pillar, than having a PC with a Chain Pact Familiar is to the Exploration pillar.

Moreover, you need to factor in a whole other class ability (Invocations) to get to those abilities. That’s not how subclasses work.

[Dork_Forge]

But that's not mechanics, that's fluff.

It's a section literally called Using These Subclasses (at the top of the pdf, before any of the others) that uses a word that only appears in the Warlock class as a feature.

Also, there's no line between fluff and crunch in 5e, if there was a hard line then we probably would have the word subclass in the PHB, yet we don't and here we are.


Can’t the exact same thing be said of Archery FS? If you don’t use it in combat (as opposed to Chain and the exploration pillar), you’re wasting what your FS gives you?

Yes, Chain gives a cool familiar, but it doesn’t do horribly more than a regular familiar can. And just like a regular familiar, it needs to stay alive to be effective. That’s not really a “playstyle” though, any more than a Wizard with a rat is now a “scout”. Yes, it can be used that way, but it’s not a necessity to be used that way.

Archery FS is more of a dictated playstyle because there’s actual penalties to not using it. It’s more integral to the way a PC approaches the Combat pillar, than having a PC with a Chain Pact Familiar is to the Exploration pillar.

Moreover, you need to factor in a whole other class ability (Invocations) to get to those abilities. That’s not how subclasses work.

What? A pact familiar is incredibly different to a regular familiar... Unless you don't consider invisibility, Devil's Sight, different poison effects and the ability to attack different.

And no there is not a penalty to not using Archery, you just aren't gaining the benefit. Which you can do for any number of reasons, maybe the combat turned to melee, maybe you have a magic dagger but not a magic bow/arrows etc.

Archery is nice, but at the end of the day it isn't defining anything, it's just making the player 10% better at what they have already chosen to do.

[RSP]

I don't know that the assertion that other classes have more playstyle-influencing choices is true. What other class has features that are specifically "gate keepered" behind a class choice like invocations are with pact boon? Using the fighting style example, there aren't any later features a fighter gets that require a dpecific fighting style.

I'm still interested in your idea for a melee chain or talisman pact warlock to show that boons dont influence playstyle.

Why does Chain pigeonhole you into a playstyle? Why does Tome?

Your question about Invocations isn’t a great question because, again, it’s a question about a different feature (Invocations). And, moreover, I can’t think of any subclasses that interact with class features that way, which again should make it obvious that Patrons are the subclass.

Deciding “oh they get an interesting ability, so this must be the subclass” isn’t an appropriate way to figure out what is the subclass for a class.

The PHB has a pretty regular format for subclasses. Reading Warlock and going “oh, that entire format must be wrong because I get to pick one of three things here” isn’t a great way to figure out what is a subclass.

[Mitchellnotes]

Why does Chain pigeonhole you into a playstyle? Why does Tome?

Your question about Invocations isn’t a great question because, again, it’s a question about a different feature (Invocations). And, moreover, I can’t think of any subclasses that interact with class features that way, which again should make it obvious that Patrons are the subclass.

Deciding “oh they get an interesting ability, so this must be the subclass” isn’t an appropriate way to figure out what is the subclass for a class.

The PHB has a pretty regular format for subclasses. Reading Warlock and going “oh, that entire format must be wrong because I get to pick one of three things here” isn’t a great way to figure out what is a subclass.

Ok, then can you identify a melee playstyle with chain or talisman? You are the one making the assertion about pacts not defining playstyles, i've shown that tome and blade provide opportunities for valid melee styles. If your assertion is true, there should be melee options for chain and talisman.

Rereading the UA, in the specific subclasses there is more text about what it replaces, that should be moved up to make it more clear, or, as others suggested, providing a substitution table.

[GooeyChewie]

It DOES. It specifically says that it replaces a warlocks Patron. It's not the books fault if people choose not to read the rules.

Well, yes, but also no.

In the "Choosing a Subclass" section, the UA uses a bard's Bardic College and a wizard's Arcane Tradition as examples. I believe this section should have included a table listing the exact features, including "Otherworldly Patron."

The individual subclasses do say "if you’re a warlock, the magic of the college serves as your patron." I believe this section should have used the term "Otherworldly Patron" (capitalized) to indicate the feature, rather than "patron" which can (and usually does) indicate the entity granting the power. The Fiend is an Otherworldly Patron feature; Mephistopheles could serve as a patron of the The Fiend variety.


It’s not necessarily a “game term.” We all know what a “subclass” is based off of its normal meaning.

True, whatever class you wish to pick out could have many subclasses in this meaning; but I’m still not sure why Warlock would stand out for that, as shown, other classes have more playstyle-influencing choices.

Clearly we do not all know or completely agree on what they mean, or we wouldn't even be having the conversation. If it isn't a game term, then this UA shouldn't be using it as a game term. EDIT: Or should clarify exactly what it does mean within the same UA.

In my opinion, the reason Warlock stands out is because the patron bestows the Pact Boon on your character. From a fluff standpoint, your Pact Boon absolutely comes from your patron; from a mechanical standpoint your Pact Boon exists completely independently from your Otherworldly Patron.


I don't see any use of the word boon in these subclasses

It's not in the subclasses themselves. It's in the "Using These Subclasses" section, in the "Choosing the Subclass" section.

"Perhaps your sorcerer’s innate
spark of elemental magic has been determinedly
honed by this schooling ever since they first
showed arcane potential, or your warlock
eschewed their patron’s usual boons for learning
these more esoteric manifestations of power."

Most of this UA uses "patron" to mean "Otherworldly Patron," yet in this case uses "boon" to not mean "Pact Boon." While I can explain that difference, the UA (and in the future, the book) should be written in such a way that nobody needs to explain it.

[Rafaelfras]

Ok, then can you identify a melee playstyle with chain or talisman? You are the one making the assertion about pacts not defining playstyles, i've shown that tome and blade provide opportunities for valid melee styles. If your assertion is true, there should be melee options for chain and talisman.

Rereading the UA, in the specific subclasses there is more text about what it replaces, that should be moved up to make it more clear, or, as others suggested, providing a substitution table.

Sure I can
Hexblade warlock, with whatever boon you want to take. Hexblades are not locked into pact of the blade, you can take both chain or talisman and you will be able to melee regardless.



Archery is nice, but at the end of the day it isn't defining anything, it's just making the player 10% better at what they have already chosen to do.

The same way pact of the chain is just a better find familiar

That's why fighting style is very similar to pact boon

[diplomancer]

Sure I can
Hexblade warlock, with whatever boon you want to take. Hexblades are not locked into pact of the blade, you can take both chain or talisman and you will be able to melee regardless.



The same way pact of the chain is just a better find familiar

That's why fighting style is very similar to pact boon

10% increase in accuracy, so, better damage vs worse damage, is the same difference than that between an intelligent invisible familiar that you can send to keep an eye on whomever you need to and will come back later and give you a full report of what he said/heard, vs a dumb creature that has some very nice utility but is entirely incapable of replicating the above.

Yes. Exactly the same thing. Have you ever played a Pact of the Chain warlock? Especially in a party with a wizard? The difference is that of night and day.

You can be an archer, even a good one, without archery (see: Rogue). You can't have an intelligent invisible familiar without Pact of the Chain.

[Dork_Forge]

The same way pact of the chain is just a better find familiar

That's why fighting style is very similar to pact boon

No no, Pact of the Chain gives you Find Familiar and then also allows you access to forms with higher stats, more hp, very useful abilities and allows them to attack. Without Pact of the Chain you don't get any familiar, let alone a superior one.

Archery improves your accuracy, it doesn't allow you to wield the bow, and I've known more than one archer to take Defense (or more recently) Superior Technique. They were still effective archers.

[RSP]

…than that between an intelligent invisible familiar that you can send to keep an eye on whomever you need to and will come back later and give you a full report of what he said/heard, vs a dumb creature that has some very nice utility but is entirely incapable of replicating the above.

And how is that a “playstyle”? Pact of the Chain is a nice perk, but it’s not a playstyle. I was debating this under the premise that the confusion was due to Pact Boons having such an effect on playstyle that it was thought to be a subclass.

Archery much more defines a playstyle, regardless of whether or not Chain offers a “better” ability.

[Dork_Forge]

And how is that a “playstyle”? Pact of the Chain is a nice perk, but it’s not a playstyle. I was debating this under the premise that the confusion was due to Pact Boons having such an effect on playstyle that it was thought to be a subclass.

Archery much more defines a playstyle, regardless of whether or not Chain offers a “better” ability.

...What playstyle does Archfey define?

[rlc]

Fighters get more feats than anybody else. That doesn’t make the feats the subclass.

[Rafaelfras]

10% increase in accuracy, so, better damage vs worse damage, is the same difference than that between an intelligent invisible familiar that you can send to keep an eye on whomever you need to and will come back later and give you a full report of what he said/heard, vs a dumb creature that has some very nice utility but is entirely incapable of replicating the above.

Different abilities do different things, the weight you are putting in then is on you.
It's still a perk available to a class and neither are a subclasses nor they lock a player on a set playstyle. Players usually define a playstyle and then go after the classes/subclasses and abilities that enable that playstyle not the other way around.



Yes. Exactly the same thing. Have you ever played a Pact of the Chain warlock? Especially in a party with a wizard? The difference is that of night and day.


Yeah what part of "better" you are having a hard time to get? If it's better, it isn't the same
And yes I had, the difference is this "I the wizard will not cast find familiar because yours is better" and that was it. What defined the warlock playstyle was his hexblade subclass, the chain familiar was just that, a perk.



You can be an archer, even a good one, without archery (see: Rogue). You can't have an intelligent invisible familiar without Pact of the Chain.

You can't have a visible, dumb, familiar without the find familiar spell. Neither define playstyle
If you as a player took archery I can say for certainly that you are a ranged attacker, that's playstyle. If you took pact of the chain, I can say nothing about your playstyle besides you have find familiar+


...What playstyle does Archfey define?

A spellcaster with more focus on subtler spells such as mind controlling and enchantment, with a faerie theme. Vastly diferente from a fiend lock with blasty spells. One can misty step and become invisible, the other has damage resistance, one can trap you in a dream, the other can throw you to hell. So, different.

[Dork_Forge]

A spellcaster with more focus on subtler spells such as mind controlling and enchantment, with a faerie theme. Vastly diferente from a fiend lock with blasty spells. One can misty step and become invisible, the other has damage resistance, one can trap you in a dream, the other can throw you to hell. So, different.

The Archfey doesn't define your spells, it adds spells to your list that you can then choose to take.

If you argue that the spells are a part of the Archfey then there's no not to accept the gated invocations as part of the Pact Boons.

Separately... how much do you really think a once per rest ability 'defines' a playstyle?

[diplomancer]

Different abilities do different things, the weight you are putting in then is on you.
It's still a perk available to a class and neither are a subclasses nor they lock a player on a set playstyle. Players usually define a playstyle and then go after the classes/subclasses and abilities that enable that playstyle not the other way around.



Yeah what part of "better" you are having a hard time to get? If it's better, it isn't the same
And yes I had, the difference is this "I the wizard will not cast find familiar because yours is better" and that was it. What defined the warlock playstyle was his hexblade subclass, the chain familiar was just that, a perk.



You can't have a visible, dumb, familiar without the find familiar spell. Neither define playstyle
If you as a player took archery I can say for certainly that you are a ranged attacker, that's playstyle. If you took pact of the chain, I can say nothing about your playstyle besides you have find familiar+



A spellcaster with more focus on subtler spells such as mind controlling and enchantment, with a faerie theme. Vastly diferente from a fiend lock with blasty spells. One can misty step and become invisible, the other has damage resistance, one can trap you in a dream, the other can throw you to hell. So, different.

When you get the Archery style, do people go "well, I won't use a bow (or agonizing blast) ever then?". That's how play defining the Pact of the Chain familiar is; a wizard gives up on one of their most powerful 1st level spells, almost a disguised class feature, because it's now almost useless. They are, simply, incomparable. It's simply not the same difference between "moar damage" and less.

As to which is the playstyle, I already said it. The sneaky warlock, the one who knows secrets he shouldn't. As opposed to the casty warlock and the fighty warlock.

Just so people understand my precise claim, I will re-estate it here:
1- using PHB only, playing a Warlock
2- your role in the party will be defined more by Boon, specially once you factor in boon-locked invocations (funny that there is no such thing as a Fighting Style-locked anything, isn't it?. Why is that if a Boon is like a Fighting Style?)han by Patron.
3- this is NOT true of Fighting styles vs Fighter Subclasses. Whether a Fighter is mostly melee or mostly ranged, his role in the party is mostly about doing damage. (Reversely, you can be a good archer without the archery FS or there'd be no ranged rogues). If he DOES want to be more tanky, his Subclasses will be far more relevant than his Fighting style. Damage is damage, it doesn't matter if it's from a sword or from a bow.

[RSP]

...What playstyle does Archfey define?

Why are you asking me? I don’t want to play your game of random questions.

A poster (maybe you, not sure) stated Pact Boons was being confused with a subclass due to Pact Boons defining playstyles. I posted arguments against that theory.

Why am I now obligated to answer this question of yours? What possible weight does it carry in my response of Fighting Styles determine playstyle at least as much as PBs, yet aren’t getting confused as subclasses.

Please explain.

[RSP]

When you get the Archery style, do people go "well, I won't use a bow (or agonizing blast) ever then?". That's how play defining the Pact of the Chain familiar is; a wizard gives up on one of their most powerful 1st level spells, almost a disguised class feature, because it's now almost useless. They are, simply, incomparable. It's simply not the same difference between "moar damage" and less.

As to which is the playstyle, I already said it. The sneaky warlock, the one who knows secrets he shouldn't. As opposed to the casty warlock and the fighty warlock.

Just so people understand my precise claim, I will re-estate it here:
1- using PHB only, playing a Warlock
2- your role in the party will be defined more by Boon, specially once you factor in boon-locked invocations (funny that there is no such thing as a Fighting Style-locked anything, isn't it?. Why is that if a Boon is like a Fighting Style?)han by Patron.
3- this is NOT true of Fighting styles vs Fighter Subclasses. Whether a Fighter is mostly melee or mostly ranged, his role in the party is mostly about doing damage. If he DOES want to be more tanky, his Subclasses will be far more relevant than his Fighting style. Damage is damage, it doesn't matter if it's from a sword or from a bow.

Choosing Pact of the Chain does not obligate you to any sort of playstyle, despite your desire to make it so. Plenty of players take it for RP aspect (“oh yeah, I want the baby dragon on my shoulder”), without it being a decision on how they want to play.

I get you don’t think that happens and it’s only chosen when one wants to optimize a certain way.

Now Archery is different. It isn’t chosen by the Player who wants to be Conan-like with a Greatsword (they chose GWF), or who wants to play a two-weapon wielding dervish (they chose TWF). It’s chosen simply for its mechanics, which very much more than PBs help define how a Player wants to play their PC.

There’s no RP value in “I’ll select this mechanical bonus from this OOC class ability.”

[Dork_Forge]

Why are you asking me? I don’t want to play your game of random questions.

A poster (maybe you, not sure) stated Pact Boons was being confused with a subclass due to Pact Boons defining playstyles. I posted arguments against that theory.

Why am I now obligated to answer this question of yours? What possible weight does it carry in my response of Fighting Styles determine playstyle at least as much as PBs, yet aren’t getting confused as subclasses.

Please explain.

Not sure where this tone of reply is coming from, you're not obligated to anything including replying in the first place.

I apologise for having misread 'Archery' as 'Archfey' and whatever undue stress this apparently caused you. Handily my question still applies.

What does Archery define as a playstyle? It doesn't, it makes you 10% more accurate with a ranged weapon. It doesn't facilitate that playstyle to begin with, it doesn't allow you to do anything new with that, it just makes you 10% more accurate.

Heck despite the name it doesn't really define being an archer, it applies to bows, crossbows, guns even darts and nets. So what is it defining if it isn't letting you do something for the first time, letting you do something new with something you could already do?

Ultimately if an Archer doesn't take the style they'll just hit 10% less. Kensei Monks and Artificers can compensate for that difference in various ways too.

So to be concise:

Apologies for mixing up two letters and seemingly ruining your week, now if you are going to bother to reply then what does Archery do to define anything since it's a broadly applying 10% accuracy bump?



There’s no RP value in “I’ll select this mechanical bonus from this OOC class ability.”

A Dex based Fighter uses a Rapier, but has the Arcery fighting style. They never really use a bow, but they group up having to hunt for their food and always had a knack with a bow, they just never enjoyed it. There's your RP and is about the same as you arguing for someone taking Pact of the Blade then just being an EB spam machine.

[RSP]

If you argue that the spells are a part of the Archfey then there's no not to accept the gated invocations as part of the Pact Boons.


What? Archfey is a subclass that “grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level.” One of those features is additional spells. That’s how a subclass works.

Pact Boons do not grant additional features at later levels (the Invocations class ability does, though), and I’m certainly not obligated to believe it does because the Archfey Patron provides additional spells.

[Segev]

Again, whether you want to argue that a Pact Boon is a subclass or not, the UA is pretty explicit that the College counts as a patron.

[diplomancer]

Choosing Pact of the Chain does not obligate you to any sort of playstyle, despite your desire to make it so. Plenty of players take it for RP aspect (“oh yeah, I want the baby dragon on my shoulder”), without it being a decision on how they want to play.

I get you don’t think that happens and it’s only chosen when one wants to optimize a certain way.

Now Archery is different. It isn’t chosen by the Player who wants to be Conan-like with a Greatsword (they chose GWF), or who wants to play a two-weapon wielding dervish (they chose TWF). It’s chosen simply for its mechanics, which very much more than PBs help define how a Player wants to play their PC.

There’s no RP value in “I’ll select this mechanical bonus from this OOC class ability.”

Yes. Because no one who's ever played D&D went "I want to be Legolas!", or "I want to be Robin Hood!" All they cared about was the mechanical power of this particular FS. Nothing to do with how they might picture that character...

It's like we are not even having the same discussion; you see, I'm not talking about optimization at all, so I really don't know where you are getting that from.

But OK, let's try once more. You chose Archery. Can you say, by that choice alone, that your role in the party will be different from that of a player who chose, say, duelling? Because the role of a Pact of the Blade Warlock WILL be different from the role of a Pact of the Chain Warlock.

[Dork_Forge]

What? Archfey is a subclass that “grants you features at 1st level and again at 6th, 10th, and 14th level.” One of those features is additional spells. That’s how a subclass works.

Pact Boons do not grant additional features at later levels (the Invocations class ability does, though), and I’m certainly not obligated to believe it does because the Archfey Patron provides additional spells.

This reply wasn't even to you, so please scale back this whole obligation thing you've got going on I haven't personally attacked you.

Cleric Domains give you spells always prepared.

Warlock patrons give you the opportunity to get other spells by adding them to your list. You still have to spend a spell known on them.

Pact Boons give you the opportuniy to get other invocations, by spending an invocation on them.

[Rafaelfras]

When you get the Archery style, do people go "well, I won't use a bow (or agonizing blast) ever then?". That's how play defining the Pact of the Chain familiar is; a wizard gives up on one of their most powerful 1st level spells, almost a disguised class feature, because it's now almost useless. They are, simply, incomparable. It's simply not the same difference between "moar damage" and less.

As to which is the playstyle, I already said it. The sneaky warlock, the one who knows secrets he shouldn't. As opposed to the casty warlock and the fighty warlock.

Just so people understand my precise claim, I will re-estate it here:
1- using PHB only, playing a Warlock
2- your role in the party will be defined more by Boon, specially once you factor in boon-locked invocations (funny that there is no such thing as a Fighting Style-locked anything, isn't it?. Why is that if a Boon is like a Fighting Style?)han by Patron.
3- this is NOT true of Fighting styles vs Fighter Subclasses. Whether a Fighter is mostly melee or mostly ranged, his role in the party is mostly about doing damage. (Reversely, you can be a good archer without the archery FS or there'd be no ranged rogues). If he DOES want to be more tanky, his Subclasses will be far more relevant than his Fighting style. Damage is damage, it doesn't matter if it's from a sword or from a bow.

I disagree with your assertions
You are giving way too much weight to a finds familiar+
First of all, a wizard don't give up on anything, find familiar is a ritual that wizards don't even have to prepare. It cost absolutely nothing. More than once both the wizard and the warlock used their familiars in the same fashion, either to get info quickly or in combat to use help action to get advantage.
I disagree with you premises, a hexblade chain lock is a fighty one, a fiend chain lock is a blasty one.

To counter your points
1- even with only phb
2-its not true that your role in the party will be decided by boon. Same as the fighter your role is mostly about doing damage. If you wish to further the utility given by your boon you can do so by taking invocations, same way if you want to further your specialisation on a fighting style you can take feats. Fighters don't have NOTHING locked, even the battle master powers don't have level requirements, it's just the way that class is designed, specially because feats are not class specific unlike invocations. So
3-this IS true for fighting style. It will change your playstyle, and you will take feats and powers to further enhance it, but a champion, a Eldritch knight and a battle master will play very different from each other even with the same Fs/feats the same way a fiend, a fey and a goo will play very distinct even with the same boon/invocations. This difference gets further and further if you take celestial and hexblade into account


The Archfey doesn't define your spells, it adds spells to your list that you can then choose to take.

If you argue that the spells are a part of the Archfey then there's no not to accept the gated invocations as part of the Pact Boons.

Separately... how much do you really think a once per rest ability 'defines' a playstyle?

My argument never excluded taking the boon specific evocations
Yes your subclass gives you access to spells, it's part of that subclass and one of the reasons why is way more significant than the pact boon.
As to how much a once per rest ability changes your playstyle? A LOT, ask blade singers for instance (abeit is not just once, but you get what I mean)

[GooeyChewie]

Again, whether you want to argue that a Pact Boon is a subclass or not, the UA is pretty explicit that the College counts as a patron.

Yes, and the Pact Boon is, according to the PHB, bestowed upon you by your patron. Part of the problem (the biggest part, in my opinion) is that the UA uses the word "patron" to mean the Otherworldly Patron feature, while much of the Warlock class uses the word "patron" to mean the entity bestowing power upon you.

Imagine a Magic: The Gathering player who gets into D&D because they like Strixhaven. All they have is Strixhaven and the PHB. They read that "your warlock eschewed their patron’s usual boons" and "the magic of the college serves as your patron." Then they go to the PHB and read "your otherworldly patron bestows a gift upon you for your loyal service." I would not blame that player at all for thinking that feature is one of the ones replaced by the college. And while experienced players such as we who frequent message boards about the game can explain why that's not the case, nobody would need to explain it if the UA was just slightly more specific about what it replaced.

All I ask is that the book be more clear about what it means when it says "subclass." I think the easiest way to communicate that information would be a small table, two columns, one first listing the class and the second listing the specific feature replaced by the Strixhaven college. I would settle for simply not bailing out with "and so on" in the examples in the "Choosing the Subclass" section. I don't see any reason not to include such a clarification.

[Mitchellnotes]

Why are you asking me? I don’t want to play your game of random questions.

A poster (maybe you, not sure) stated Pact Boons was being confused with a subclass due to Pact Boons defining playstyles. I posted arguments against that theory.

Why am I now obligated to answer this question of yours? What possible weight does it carry in my response of Fighting Styles determine playstyle at least as much as PBs, yet aren’t getting confused as subclasses.

Please explain.

That was me, and you haven't responded. I asked for a melee chain or talisman example. The only example has been a hexblade. Blade pact provides the opportunity for a warlock to get an extra attack and other features (yes, those also require invocations, but those invocations are predicated on the pact). That surpasses archery style giving a +2 to hit. You keep saying a fighting style defines a playstyle more, and i disagree. Their are fighting styles that do do this (thrown and unarmed) because they provide an opportunity for a fighter to do something they otherwise couldn't. Blade pact does that. Yes, warlocks could melee otherwise, but it functions very, very differently. I'm not sure how you define "playstyle," but it must certainly be differrnt than i do. Sure, tome, chain, and talisman likely function similarly in combat, but have very different options available to them.

[GeoffWatson]

Wouldn't they notice that they'd only get one Strixhaven ability as there is only one Pact Boon on the Warlock class table?
Would they find that odd?

[Dork_Forge]

Wouldn't they notice that they'd only get one Strixhaven ability as there is only one Pact Boon on the Warlock class table?
Would they find that odd?

It's more that people might think that they lose both Pact and patron

[Telwar]

Hrm. I wonder if they'll get around to taking *any* feedback on these (like the "no seriously guys you need to make it WAY more clear, like putting in a nice chart"), or if they're already in printing.

[diplomancer]

I disagree with your assertions
You are giving way too much weight to a finds familiar+
First of all, a wizard don't give up on anything, find familiar is a ritual that wizards don't even have to prepare. It cost absolutely nothing. More than once both the wizard and the warlock used their familiars in the same fashion, either to get info quickly or in combat to use help action to get advantage.
I disagree with you premises, a hexblade chain lock is a fighty one, a fiend chain lock is a blasty one.

Well, you said wizard was not casting find familiar. Now he is. Even when he is, the wizard familiar simply cannot be a spy as it lacks the intelligence to do so. It's, at best, a scout and a slight combat bonus (but strictly inferior to a vanilla Imp even just in combat. I've seen a player use an Imp to clear an area of several goblins we knew were lying in ambush without involving the rest of the party at all; eventually they had to break cover and engage the party, because the Imp was killing them one by one).



To counter your points
1- even with only phb
2-its not true that your role in the party will be decided by boon. Same as the fighter your role is mostly about doing damage.
No. It really isn't. The party where I'm playing a Celestial Chain Warlock, you can be sure that when people think about how I contribute to the party, they don't think "the damage guy". They think "the guy with the invisible spy that can listen in on the Cultist's plan, and who can heal us (specially when we're down). He's OK at damage, but if damage's what you want, the Vengeance Paladin is your man". Yes, a warlock can do good enough damage to contribute to a party in that area (by the way, in the same playstyle as the guy with Archery, I.e, ranged attacker, with no need of having the Fighting Style).

But if he wants damage to be the party role that he fills, he's not picking up Pact of the Chain. He just ain't, specially PHB only (I.e, without Investment of the Chain Master, which, in combo with Magic Stone, can actually make you very good at damage). I'd say, not even with Hexblade, but I don't need to go there, as my argument is about the PHB.


If you wish to further the utility given by your boon you can do so by taking invocations, same way if you want to further your specialisation on a fighting style you can take feats.
1- Feats are optional, Fighting Styles, Boons, and Invocations are not.
2- PHB Pact of the Chain has exactly ONE invocation; that improves his party role of scout/spy/sneak, with absolute no combat impact whatsoever. Compare that with Pact of the Blade; invocation for better damage at level 5, than invocation for better damage at level 12.


Fighters don't have NOTHING locked, even the battle master powers don't have level requirements, it's just the way that class is designed, specially because feats are not class specific unlike invocations. So
3-this IS true for fighting style. It will change your playstyle, and you will take feats and powers to further enhance it, but a champion, a Eldritch knight and a battle master will play very different from each other even with the same Fs/feats the same way a fiend, a fey and a goo will play very distinct even with the same boon/invocations. This difference gets further and further if you take celestial and hexblade into account

1- Celestial and Hexblade are irrelevant to my argument. If you must bring them in, the fact that they actually DO bring greater differences to playstyle that Fiend/Archfey/Great Old One is evidence (not proof, obviously) of my theory that, when the PHB was written, it was understood that a Warlock's role would be determined by the combination of Patron+Boon (and associated invocations), while later the designers moved away from that and started making warlock subclasses that are as impactful as other classes' subclasses. No such issue with Fighting Styles, which are in fact so bland that several different classes have them (and as of Tasha you can even get them with a feat).
2- Imagine this situation. I'm a somewhat unexperienced (but interested and "talented") player with a strict DM. As such, while making a Dex Fighter, I choose the two weapon fighting style. As the game progresses, I realize I'm contributing less to the party damage-wise than I'd like. I go to optimization forums, and learn that wielding two weapons is suboptimal, and that XBE+SS is where the money is, damage-wise, to a dex fighter. As I also pictured my character being competent at range, I decide to make the switch, grabbing those feats, even though the strict DM does not let me change the Fighting Style. Am I am Archer? What's more relevant, would anyone, without looking at my character sheet or me telling them, know that I have the two weapon fighting style, not the Archery style, as long as I was using the Hand Crossbow all the time? If not, how can you say that the Archery style is what defines an archer, if I can be a very good archer without it, even perhaps better than someone who DID choose Archery (because he pictured his character as an archer, but is not so much into damage optimization that he never took those two feats, for instance, being perfectly happy firing away arrows but then getting more utility feats than damage feats)? I don't care what feats, spells, subclasses or invocations you're getting, without Pact of the Chain you're not getting the perfect spy familiar. THAT'S how more impactful the Boon is than the FS.

Yet one more way of putting it: Archery FS is one of many "building blocks for archery optimization". It is NOT what makes you an Archer, or even a good Archer, as you can be a worse Archer than someone else who didn't pick the style (but picked the feats). You could say, perhaps, that it is what makes the best possible archer, but even if you say "ranged attacker is a particular playstyle" (which is controversial, but I'll waive it for now), there's no way you are going to convince me that "best possible ranged attacker is a particular playstyle, different from just regular ranged attacker."

[Rafaelfras]

Well, you said wizard was not casting find familiar. Now he is. Even when he is, the wizard familiar simply cannot be a spy as it lacks the intelligence to do so. It's, at best, a scout and a slight combat bonus (but strictly inferior to a vanilla Imp even just in combat. I've seen a player use an Imp to clear an area of several goblins we knew were lying in ambush without involving the rest of the party at all; eventually they had to break cover and engage the party, because the Imp was killing them one by one).


You still can see through the familiar eyes and command him with your mind. It can be used as a spy just fine. Chain is better, but as you said yourself, you don't need the best.
And the goblins should have just attacked the imp (since invisible is not hidden) or fled. But good for the player. I always enjoy seeing players using their abilities. (My assassin player never again will call his lvl 9 ability useless)



No. It really isn't. The party where I'm playing a Celestial Chain Warlock, you can be sure that when people think about how I contribute to the party, they don't think "the damage guy". They think "the guy with the invisible spy that can listen in on the Cultist's plan, and who can heal us (specially when we're down). He's OK at damage, but if damage's what you want, the Vengeance Paladin is your man". Yes, a warlock can do good enough damage to contribute to a party in that area (by the way, in the same playstyle as the guy with Archery, I.e, ranged attacker, with no need of having the Fighting Style).

So you took a subclass that offers you the role of a healer? See how it changes you in a deeper way than your boon? Had you chosen tome or talisman as a boon your party would have a vast array of choices to spy, either sending a invisible rogue or spells like scrying, arcane eye, divination and even a regular familiar. You on the other hand would still be able to heal and do ok damage from afar. You don't need archery Fs because you are spell caster, I never claimed archery was the only way to be a ranged dmg dealers, so plz don't go to that strawman.



But if he wants damage to be the party role that he fills, he's not picking up Pact of the Chain. He just ain't, specially PHB only (I.e, without Investment of the Chain Master, which, in combo with Magic Stone, can actually make you very good at damage). I'd say, not even with Hexblade, but I don't need to go there, as my argument is about the PHB.

Why? Does pact of the chain blocks you from getting agonizing blast and hex? If not then you are a perfectly capable damage dealer, the same way you don't have to be a perfect archer to be an archer, you don't need a crazy build to be a damage dealer. Specially with just PHB Eldritch blast with agonizing blast+ hex is more than enough. Your boon being irrelevant.



1- Feats are optional, Fighting Styles, Boons, and Invocations are not.
2- PHB Pact of the Chain has exactly ONE invocation; that improves his party role of scout/spy/sneak, with absolute no combat impact whatsoever. Compare that with Pact of the Blade; invocation for better damage at level 5, than invocation for better damage at level 12.

1- irrelevant
2- that's exactly why there is nothing stopping you from taking agonizing blast and doing decent dmg.
Pact of the blade had to have those invocations because it's supposed to give the warlock a decent melee option that is not available to the class and still wasn't enough, that's why they made the hexblade. Chain on the other hand gives you a perk, same as tome. The amount of change they bring is similar to a fighting style. You took blade, you intend to go melee, you took archery, you intend to go ranged. Your subclass on the other hand will give a great deal of options and perks that will change you in a deeper way than one fighting style and on pact boon



1- Celestial and Hexblade are irrelevant to my argument. If you must bring them in, the fact that they actually DO bring greater differences to playstyle that Fiend/Archfey/Great Old One is evidence (not proof, obviously) of my theory that, when the PHB was written, it was understood that a Warlock's role would be determined by the combination of Patron+Boon (and associated invocations), while later the designers moved away from that and started making warlock subclasses that are as impactful as other classes' subclasses. No such issue with Fighting Styles, which are in fact so bland that several different classes have them (and as of Tasha you can even get them with a feat).
2- Imagine this situation. I'm a somewhat unexperienced (but interested and "talented") player with a strict DM. As such, while making a Dex Fighter, I choose the two weapon fighting style. As the game progresses, I realize I'm contributing less to the party damage-wise than I'd like. I go to optimization forums, and learn that wielding two weapons is suboptimal, and that XBE+SS is where the money is, damage-wise, to a dex fighter. As I also pictured my character being competent at range, I decide to make the switch, grabbing those feats, even though the strict DM does not let me change the Fighting Style. Am I am Archer? What's more relevant, would anyone, without looking at my character sheet or me telling them, know that I have the two weapon fighting style, not the Archery style, as long as I was using the Hand Crossbow all the time? If not, how can you say that the Archery style is what defines an archer, if I can be a very good archer without it, even perhaps better than someone who DID choose Archery (because he pictured his character as an archer, but is not so much into damage optimization that he never took those two feats, for instance, being perfectly happy firing away arrows but then getting more utility feats than damage feats)? I don't care what feats, spells, subclasses or invocations you're getting, without Pact of the Chain you're not getting the perfect spy familiar. THAT'S how more impactful the Boon is than the FS.


1 yes that's why I said they just further my argument. The reason they are different is because they are new, there is no point in bringing new subclasses that play similar to the ones already in. See war magic and blade singers for instance in wizards case. I agree that fighting styles are blander than boons, no argument here, but they have a similar function. I don't agree that boons are as significant as subclasses, I find fey and fiend differences way more significant than chain and tome. Also you can also take invocations with a feat. That doesn't make them bland

2- irrelevant. Anedotical example is just that anedotical. The same can be said for a warlock who took chain just for flavor and forgot the familiar is even there. He then went multi class with sorcerer and become an optimized damage dealer and never touched his familiar again.
You don't NEED the perfect spy familiar. There are a plethora of spying tools in the game, the familiar is just one of them and having it will have the weight you put on it



Yet one more way of putting it: Archery FS is one of many "building blocks for archery optimization". It is NOT what makes you an Archer, or even a good Archer, as you can be a worse Archer than someone else who didn't pick the style (but picked the feats). You could say, perhaps, that it is what makes the best possible archer, but even if you say "ranged attacker is a particular playstyle" (which is controversial, but I'll waive it for now), there's no way you are going to convince me that "best possible ranged attacker is a particular playstyle, different from just regular ranged attacker."

I never said you need archery to be an archer.
I said that if you took archery I expect you to be one. If you took chain I know you have a better familiar, and that's it. In your case you choose celestial and became a healer. A fiend could be the party dmg dealers, single target and area of effect. For a strictly spymaster I would go great old one for claravoyance, detect thoughs, sending and dominate person. But I would still also be a ranged damage dealer because hex+ agonizing blast are very cheap and as you said your self you don't need to be the best.

[diplomancer]

You still can see through the familiar eyes and command him with your mind. It can be used as a spy just fine. Chain is better, but as you said yourself, you don't need the best.
And the goblins should have just attacked the imp (since invisible is not hidden) or fled. But good for the player. I always enjoy seeing players using their abilities. (My assassin player never again will call his lvl 9 ability useless)



So you took a subclass that offers you the role of a healer? See how it changes you in a deeper way than your boon? Had you chosen tome or talisman as a boon your party would have a vast array of choices to spy, either sending a invisible rogue or spells like scrying, arcane eye, divination and even a regular familiar. You on the other hand would still be able to heal and do ok damage from afar. You don't need archery Fs because you are spell caster, I never claimed archery was the only way to be a ranged dmg dealers, so plz don't go to that strawman.

Yes. A Xanathar subclass. Which has been one of my arguments from the beginning; that, starting from Xanathar, Patrons have been more impactful, and, now, have a greater impact than the Boon, unlike how the class was initially conceived (Pact+Boon as "subclass"). And, even then, it has a comparable impact to the Boon (healer and spy are my roles, not just healer. There are other healers in the party).

My party is level 5. Those spells are unavailable. Invisible rogue could do it, at considerable risk to him, at the cost of a spell slot, and less effectiveness for the party as he's busy elsewhere ("don't split the party" is a D&D commandment for a reason). If things go wrong, that's a dead PC. If things go wrong with the sprite, that's 10 gp and one hour. As to the regular familiar, he can only do that role if the caster is within 100'; which is way too little for anything that is not a dungeon or a building. And if whatever being spied is "on the move", they might not be immediately suspicious at seeing an owl, but you can be sure that if the owl starts following them, it won't be long for this world.




Why? Does pact of the chain blocks you from getting agonizing blast and hex? If not then you are a perfectly capable damage dealer, the same way you don't have to be a perfect archer to be an archer, you don't need a crazy build to be a damage dealer. Specially with just PHB Eldritch blast with agonizing blast+ hex is more than enough. Your boon being irrelevant.

Enough to be a decent damage dealer? Yes, which is why I took them with my Chain Pact Warlock. Enough for that to be my main role in the party? No, unless the martials are almost trying to be unoptimal in that regard. As mentioned, I'm NOT the main damage dealer of the party, even with agonizing blast.







I never said you need archery to be an archer.
I said that if you took archery I expect you to be one. If you took chain I know you have a better familiar, and that's it. In your case you choose celestial and became a healer. A fiend could be the party dmg dealers, single target and area of effect. For a strictly spymaster I would go great old one for claravoyance, detect thoughs, sending and dominate person. But I would still also be a ranged damage dealer because hex+ agonizing blast are very cheap and as you said your self you don't need to be the best.

OK, thought experiment. You are joining a new party, and want to be good at spying. You have two choices. One of them is a Pact of the Chain Warlock; you don't know the Patron, or any invocation, except it's not the Great Old One. The other one is a Great Old One warlock. You don't know the boon, or the invocations, except it's not Pact of the Chain.

What is your choice? (You can make the same thought experiment with the other Pacts, and maybe you'll see what I'm trying to convey).

[Rafaelfras]

Enough to be a decent damage dealer? Yes, which is why I took them with my Chain Pact Warlock. Enough for that to be my main role in the party? No, unless the martials are almost trying to be unoptimal in that regard. As mentioned, I'm NOT the main damage dealer of the party, even with agonizing blast.




OK, thought experiment. You are joining a new party, and want to be good at spying. You have two choices. One of them is a Pact of the Chain Warlock; you don't know the Patron, or any invocation, except it's not the Great Old One. The other one is a Great Old One warlock. You don't know the boon, or the invocations, except it's not Pact of the Chain.

What is your choice? (You can make the same thought experiment with the other Pacts, and maybe you'll see what I'm trying to convey).

If a player want to focus on damage, he usually will succeed at it over another person who didn't took it as his sole focus. Good damage it's still good. And this will change greatly from each table.

I would go GOO, I don't like pets, I can take mask of many faces and through skills (deception, persuasion and hide) and spells that the subclass get would do the spying myself.

[diplomancer]

If a player want to focus on damage, he usually will succeed at it over another person who didn't took it as his sole focus. Good damage it's still good. And this will change greatly from each table.

Yes. My Pact of the Chain Warlock does good damage (no Hex, as I've found Investment of the Chain Master to be more impactful, and my concentration to be too valuable). But if that's what I wanted the most to bring to the party, that would not be my build choice. As it is, I'd say I'm in the top half of the group, but not at the peak, so it's really not what the group cares the most about what I can do. As the martials progress, they will eventually leave me more and more behind, as they get more feats and class features that improve their damage. I'm fine with that (as I'm sure they are; again, it's not the most important thing I bring to the party. The Sprite is.)


I would go GOO, I don't like pets, I can take mask of many faces and through skills (deception, persuasion and hide) and spells that the subclass get would do the spying myself.

You misunderstand me. The character exists. This is a one shot. You don't know which are the invocations he has. You have no control over them. All you know is Pact of the Chain on one side vs Great Old One on the other. It's a thought experiment designed to isolate the impact of the choice of Boon vs. Patron, after you've said "Great Old One's the best Patron for a spy"- which I agree with by the way; just not as impactful as the Pact in that regard.

(Interesting also that your decision is, openly, not about who would make the best spy, but about your personal preferences about not depending on pets. Which is fine, but only a preference. And that even then you'd still need MORE build resources to compete).

But it's pretty clear we're not going to convince each other, and it's not like this is an objective discussion with agreed upon parameters, so, even though I'm still surprised that people find a +2 to hit comparable with an invisible intelligent familiar (that can be even further improved), I'm stopping here.

[Arkhios]

Since this thread has already devolved into an argument regarding something that should have occurred 6 years ago (perhaps it did, I just don't remember seeing it happen), I might as well drop my 2 copper pieces.

Pact Boon is only ever mentioned by the Warlock class chassis ONCE, at 3rd level, while Otherwordly Patron (features) are mentioned FOUR (4) TIMES, at levels 1, 6, 10, and 14.

If you're still seriously trying to claim that Pact Boon is the Warlock Subclass, you might want to think twice before making yourself look like a fool.

And about assimilating Pact Boon with Fighting Styles; yes, they are similar in that they fill a similar niche, but they are not EXACTLY alike.

Now, could you please cut it out, and focus on debating the topic at hand...

[Kane0]

So for the purposes of feedback if and when we get the opportunity, which features are OK and which need the nerf bat?

[RSP]

That was me, and you haven't responded.

No, it wasn’t: I quoted what I was referring to.



I asked for a melee chain or talisman example. The only example has been a hexblade…Sure, tome, chain, and talisman likely function similarly in combat, but have very different options available to them.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. I never said each subclass of each class is equally good at every playstyle. Any class/subclass can be played any way the PC wants to, which is more the point: you aren’t locked into playstyles.

If you want to play a melee chain, I’d multiclass for better AC and attacks, and take the max healing invocation to help stay up (and keep your familiar alive).

I’m not as familiar with Talisman (and not interested enough to look), but I imagine it’s pretty much the same answer: get a melee attack and take invocations that help you with your chosen style.

Edit: after further thought, a Celestial Chainlock should be okay at melee. I’d still dip for better AC, but getting max die rolls on their healing abilities will certainly help stay up, and Shadow Blade plus BB/GFB should work fine for damage output. GFB will be particularly good after getting 6th level ability, and their 10th helps with staying power as well. Certainly doable.

[Hael]

So for the purposes of feedback if and when we get the opportunity, which features are OK and which need the nerf bat?

I think the ‘give vulnerability’ idea is a deeply problematic feature to put in 5e and unfortunately it’s on multiple subclasses in this UA so I think we’re going to be stuck with it. It counteracts too many important defenses that challenging creatures have and really is a significant threat reduction in an already easy game.

Also a lot of the Portent like rerolls and proliferation of attack and saving throw modifiers is starting to be another problem. It’s fine when it’s just the bard, but when you can start stacking these things in most parties it breaks a lot of the bounded accuracy assumptions.

[Joe the Rat]

How many pages have y'all gone on this?

Okay. Let's try this.

Warlocks are different.

You get two. Deal with it.

Your Patron is most akin to a Wizard School or Cleric Domain - It tweaks what you have in the tank, and imparts a bit of flavor, but its impact on your murder style is tangential. Hell, Hexblade/Spellblade stand out as The Weird One That Encourages Melee on Your Squishy-sized HD Chassis.

Your Boon is a closer to a Fighter Archetype. It gives you some encouragement to specific styles of play, but ultimately is a gateway to resources. Those Pact-specific Invocations? That's like your choice of superiority dice, or spells, or a specific themed power suite. But you are ultimately going to be the one that keeps going all damn day. But even then it's just flavoring the combo platter - did you pay for the steak or the crab legs at the buffet?

In exchange for the flex, Warlocks don't have core class features between 1 and 20. It's all Patron, Pact & Invocation, and Spell Progression.

Structurally, the Patron is set up as the subclass - it is the one that clearly imparts abilities at specific levels as noted on the level progression table.


Again, whether you want to argue that a Pact Boon is a subclass or not, the UA is pretty explicit that the College counts as a patron.

...but this should pretty well cover it for the purposes of Strixhaven.
(and as someone working in higher ed, that autocorrect was oddly on point)

[ZRN]

So for the purposes of feedback if and when we get the opportunity, which features are OK and which need the nerf bat?

I feel like the reaction teleport and the permanent stoneskin/passwall for the Quandrix mage are potentially problematic.

I honestly think they just forgot to add a daily limit on the level 14 feature there - that would probably make it okay.

The reaction teleport, though - that seems really powerful! And sorcerers get it at level 1! Can anyone think of another offensive low-level ranged teleport spell to compare it to? It just seems crazy to me that you can't approach a Quandrix mage at very low levels without rolling a Charisma save to avoid getting dumped off a cliff/into lava/next to the party's tank.

The other level 1 feature - the bless/bane effect every time you cast a spell - also seems, uh, quite strong! Probably stronger than any other low-level caster subclass feature on its own!

[Swaoeaeieu]

So i don't know if its OP or not, just a thought i had:

Lorehold Warlock, pact of the blade, level 6.

So at 6 you get the acces to the (previously mentioned) Lessons of the Past, warrior.
You also have 3 eldritch invocations, lets say improved pact weapon (i had a longbow in mind), eldritch smite, and something else.

You Eldritch blast, at level 6 thats 2 beams, get a free attack with a boost, use one of your spellslots to eldritch smite, bonus action get your warrior statue to hit the guy as well.

Would be 2d10+2d8+4d8+1d8+2+profficiency bonus+ dex mod. Oh and why not add in agonizing blast for another 2*cha mod.

at level 6. Maybe you even have sharpshooter or elven accuracy or the piercer feat, who knows. But this sounds like a lot of dicerolling at level 6, i don't know though, i don't have a good eye for balance.

does need you to hit 3 times offcourse.

[Dork_Forge]

So i don't know if its OP or not, just a thought i had:

Lorehold Warlock, pact of the blade, level 6.

So at 6 you get the acces to the (previously mentioned) Lessons of the Past, warrior.
You also have 3 eldritch invocations, lets say improved pact weapon (i had a longbow in mind), eldritch smite, and something else.

You Eldritch blast, at level 6 thats 2 beams, get a free attack with a boost, use one of your spellslots to eldritch smite, bonus action get your warrior statue to hit the guy as well.

Would be 2d10+2d8+4d8+1d8+2+profficiency bonus+ dex mod. Oh and why not add in agonizing blast for another 2*cha mod.

at level 6. Maybe you even have sharpshooter or elven accuracy or the piercer feat, who knows. But this sounds like a lot of dicerolling at level 6, i don't know though, i don't have a good eye for balance.

does need you to hit 3 times offcourse.

In general adding anything onto a baseline of EB/AB is already pushing powerful, EB+attack from a +1 bow+bonus statue attack is a bit much in my mind without the nova of Eldritch Smite. The fact that this combo scales with Eldritch blast keeps it competitive and if the Warlock burns the first bonus on Hex it's firmly in no thank you territory.