Thoughts on the Warlock Changes

[Psyren]

Something I think got a bit lost in the shuffle in the various content creator summit threads were the two big changes we got wind of coming to Warlock in . (I expect we'll have many more to discuss and chew over with the playtest packet but these two are the two that we know are coming, so I'll stick with these for now.)

These are:

- Warlocks' "baby pact" at level 1, which appears to be tied to their pact boon - e.g. you'll be a tomelock first and then learn who gave you the book later

- Warlocks being able to change their casting stat to a different mental score (is it just Int and Cha, or all three?)

I think the former will allow them to maintain some degree of the class fiction while normalizing their subclass selection to third level like the other 1DnD classes. You find a tome or blade or vile Kyubey cute creature that whispers of power to you, you agree to the terms, and then a couple of levels in you learn exactly who you just signed on with. Or you learn right away but can't access their specific powers right away.

In short, I like this approach, but acknowledge that it's a departure from the old Warlock. What does everyone else think?

[Dr.Samurai]

I definitely like the idea of choosing your casting stat; not sure on tying it to your patron. I think it makes sense... but I also think warlocks strike me as more int-focus rather than cha-focused, so I'd just prefer the option to go intelligence no matter who my patron is. But regardless, I like this shift.

I don't have much of an opinion on the baby pact. I DO think part of warlock lore should be that bargaining is instinctual to them, to sort of emphasize their path to power. So warlocks should be able to make use of a parley system better than most, and always be looking to deal with the various creatures they meet. But that'd require a parley system lol, otherwise it's just warlocks using the Persuasion/Deception skill. As-is though, they sort of make one big pact with one entity and then... they just adventure. They should be wheeling and dealing throughout their career IMO.

[Millstone85]

I had been wondering if we would eventually get "patrons" that are to Chain and Tome what the Hexblade is to Blade.

This is their chance to do that, only now you could get to be a full bladelock while serving the Archfey, the Fiend or any other patron.

[Psyren]

I definitely like the idea of choosing your casting stat; not sure on tying it to your patron. I think it makes sense... but I also think warlocks strike me as more int-focus rather than cha-focused, so I'd just prefer the option to go intelligence no matter who my patron is. But regardless, I like this shift.

I think it's tied to your pact boon rather than your patron (can someone confirm?) i.e. all Tomelocks will be Int-based, which honestly makes sense to me. You can then be a GOO Tomelock or a Fiend Tomelock or a Fey Tomelock etc.



I don't have much of an opinion on the baby pact. I DO think part of warlock lore should be that bargaining is instinctual to them, to sort of emphasize their path to power. So warlocks should be able to make use of a parley system better than most, and always be looking to deal with the various creatures they meet. But that'd require a parley system lol, otherwise it's just warlocks using the Persuasion/Deception skill. As-is though, they sort of make one big pact with one entity and then... they just adventure. They should be wheeling and dealing throughout their career IMO.

I mean - just because Warlocks are centered around a bargain doesn't mean they have to be GOOD at bargaining or that it's second-nature to them. In fact, you might not be the one who made the bargain at all, rather an ancestor could have bound you to {entity} before you were even born and at level 1 your character has just come of age to fulfill their end, that kind of thing.

[Rukelnikov]

I like it, tbh that's kinda how I played my warlock, we rolled on the weird items table for newly created PCs that's on the PHB, and I got "a handkerchief with the name of a powerful archmage", so we added it was thru that handkerchief that I made my pact with whatever it was that had been speaking in my head since I was little, eventually bloodstains would appear in the handkerchief as warnings and stuff like that, it eventually dispersed itself in threads of cloth after having met the archmage whose name was on it. I never "knew" that my patron was a Great Old One.

Overall I like the idea of doing multiple pacts during play as a Warlock, cause that's the main fantasy of the class, if you just do a pact oce at chargen and not much after, then the feel of being a lock is lost.

EDIT: Oh yeah and the casting stat is interesting, a Locksinger used to be tricky to do, now as intlock it could be a great combination, though I suspect the Lock may be once of the most changed classes, so we'll have to wait and see what the 5.5 Lock looks like.

[Amnestic]

I think it's fine. I think the current way is fine too (except for Hexblade).

Does mean you can take pact-specific invocations at 2nd now, whereas before you were waiting until 3rd to swap one out.

[Witty Username]

I think I would prefer patron at 1, pact as subclass at 3rd. But I am pretty chill with it either way.

Choosing ability scores is, interesting, I hope warlock is a bit better balanced for multiclassing if that is the case (then again most of the issue is sorcerer's end for broken MP combos, so it might be fine).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm mostly fine with anything that can wind back some of the powerful Cha synergies available. My expectation is that Int synergies will be generally less powerful than what we have, though maybe some Hexblade/Bladesinger stuff could be problematic.

[Kane0]

Sounds fine to me. Way back in 5es playtest warlocks were int based to this would actually he somewhat of a callback

[Zevox]

I think we have too little information to judge much. I mean, in a vacuum, I'd say the Blade/Tome/Chain part of the pact being level 1 is fine, but I'm not a fan of being able to change your casting stat. But without more details, it's hard to say much, as there's a lot more to a class than that.

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean - just because Warlocks are centered around a bargain doesn't mean they have to be GOOD at bargaining or that it's second-nature to them. In fact, you might not be the one who made the bargain at all, rather an ancestor could have bound you to {entity} before you were even born and at level 1 your character has just come of age to fulfill their end, that kind of thing.
Yeah, it doesn't have to be forced or anything. But Warlocks do get Invocations that they can choose. One that interacts with the new Study action and gives them a leg-up on parleying with monsters would be interesting if people want to lean into that side of the class.

[Luccan]

Ya know, if they wanted everyone to start their games at level 3, they could just take all the features of the first 3 levels and call it level 1

More seriously, I appreciate the attempt to bring the subclass levels in line with each other, but this and Sorcerer presumably switching its bloodline to 3rd level feels like the novelty is gonna get old fast. I can definitely see "where did I get these strange powers from?" as interesting, but that's also pretty much been the backstory of both the Warlocks in Critical Role and both the Sorcerers of Campaign 3 (one is also one of the aforementioned Warlocks). I can't imagine most people will get more than a couple games with that sort of character before it gets old.

"But nothing requires you to play to not know your bloodline/pact maker!" Sure, but that just means I know I'm a Fiend pact from level 1, but don't get any fiendish abilities until level 3. This is a "we're standardizing things, impact on lore or logic be damned" move. It's going to have minimal impact on real games, I'd wager, but it's still odd.

Now being able to change your primary attribute? That's interesting. In theory I support this, though if Warlock multiclassing is as abusable as it was in 5e I think that it will cause issues with being able to gel with every caster now and potentially any build that has at least one strong mental stat. I do wonder if they're let you pick your stat freely or tie it to the pact boons. I've had the idea for the latter for a while (Tome = Int, Chain = Cha, Blade = Wis) but I'd assume they're going to do the former

Edit: looks like they are tying your pact boon and casting stat together. Interesting

[Psyren]

Sounds fine to me. Way back in 5es playtest warlocks were int based to this would actually he somewhat of a callback

Agreed. Hell, I'd be okay with a pact boon that lets you be Wis focused too! Maybe Talisman...

Edit: I doubt it'll be Blade=Wis as that would kill a lot of paladin gish builds.


Yeah, it doesn't have to be forced or anything. But Warlocks do get Invocations that they can choose. One that interacts with the new Study action and gives them a leg-up on parleying with monsters would be interesting if people want to lean into that side of the class.

Wouldn't that be the Influence action?

But sure, I could go for a class ability that gives them an edge in making deals (likely an invocation, so that warlocks who want to be crap at it or at least no better than anyone else can simply forego that option.)

[Dienekes]

Pretty much as I expected. I value the change in ability scores, don't particularly like the mini-pact. But then I do not value placing the subclasses all at the same level. I do not like that clerics, warlocks (and paladins) whose lore is tied to what makes up their subclass have to push it back several levels when it should be up in front. So, my response is pretty much what is expected. They're doing it. People apparently value it. I think it weakens the class fantasy, and I place more value on that than I do making everything run on the same class advancement pattern. WotC doesn't. It's not a game breaker, but it is something I think makes the part of the game I like fundamentally worse.

Not much else to say.

[paladinn]

I wonder what this will do to HexWarrior. A lot of people dip Hexblade to become Cha-SAD. Is a warlock dip going to need to go 3 levels to get it?

[Luccan]

Pretty much as I expected. I value the change in ability scores, don't particularly like the mini-pact. But then I do not value placing the subclasses all at the same level. I do not like that clerics, warlocks (and paladins) whose lore is tied to what makes up their subclass have to push it back several levels when it should be up in front. So, my response is pretty much what is expected. They're doing it. People apparently value it. I think it weakens the class fantasy, and I place more value on that than I do making everything run on the same class advancement pattern. WotC doesn't. It's not a game breaker, but it is something I think makes the part of the game I like fundamentally worse.

Not much else to say.

This is a better summation of my thoughts on the subclass level changes. WotC seems to be leaning on balance over fantasy and that's less fun for me. I also get this outcome, though. People complained constantly about either power creep or weakness of new subclasses. I imagine it will be a lot easier to balance subclasses out once all classes are working with the same starting point and number of subclass features

[Jophiel]

As mentioned, Warlocks were planned as an Int class in 5e anyway but people complained so they got switched, which left us with the weird surplus in CHA casters. I always found the justification for warlocks as charisma based to be lacking anyway -- you used your mighty 14 charisma to wheel and deal the infernal prince or fae lord or elder god or whatever? Sure ya did.

Baby pact sounds better than the full level three thing. And could potentially have some fun RP implications (though nothing you couldn't do now, learning that your patron isn't really what you thought)

[Dr.Samurai]

Wouldn't that be the Influence action?

But sure, I could go for a class ability that gives them an edge in making deals (likely an invocation, so that warlocks who want to be crap at it or at least no better than anyone else can simply forego that option.)
Sorry, I was unclear.

Study to figure out how to approach the particular creature. I think Xanathar's gave us some pretty simple guidelines for parleying with monsters. I don't expect this to happen but maybe building on that, and using the new Study action. It's something anyone can do but warlocks strike me as particularly aimed at this. Just a musing.

[Unoriginal]

Would be nice if they made Blade pact = STR as casting stat.

[da newt]

I'm in favor of tweaks to make 1 or 2 level dips less advantageous, and I don't mind a flexibility of your casting stat / primary stat, but if you are going to make it flexible let it be Player's choice - don't dictate this pact = this stat, let me mess with it.

I think it would be great to have the warlock be a class that lets you choose any stat BUT CON as your casting stat (WHY NOT?), and I'm also all for doing away with the hexblade = SAD button too.

[Kane0]

I wonder what this will do to HexWarrior. A lot of people dip Hexblade to become Cha-SAD. Is a warlock dip going to need to go 3 levels to get it?

Perhaps for all aspects that were previously covered. If this minipact at level 1 is similar to the clerics pre-domain choice then you could have proficiencies granted at 1, or casting stat as weapon attack stat, but maybe not both. For blade pact i dont see a huge issue providing both, but that would likely come at the cost of the neat summoning ribbon which would make me sad.

[paladinn]

Perhaps for all aspects that were previously covered. If this minipact at level 1 is similar to the clerics pre-domain choice then you could have proficiencies granted at 1, or casting stat as weapon attack stat, but maybe not both. For blade pact i dont see a huge issue providing both, but that would likely come at the cost of the neat summoning ribbon which would make me sad.

Maybe I missed something. Hexblade isn't just a pact (like Blade pact); it's a patron. If patrons aren't gotten till L3, then there's no Cha-SADness till L3, right?

I'd like to see more Hexblade features folded into Blade pact. Maybe just combine them.

[Dr.Samurai]

Would be nice if they made Blade pact = STR as casting stat.
Dude... that would be awesome!

[Unoriginal]

Sorry, I was unclear.

Study to figure out how to approach the particular creature. I think Xanathar's gave us some pretty simple guidelines for parleying with monsters. I don't expect this to happen but maybe building on that, and using the new Study action. It's something anyone can do but warlocks strike me as particularly aimed at this. Just a musing.

You're thinking of the Tasha's.

Those aren't actually guidelines for parleying, though, they're guidelines for what you can offer to monsters for them to consider parleying with you.

Always seemed on the "someone left their work on their desk as they left for the weekend so we put it in the book to add some pages" parts of the Tasha's to me.


Dude... that would be awesome!

Musclelocks rising.

[Psyren]

As mentioned, Warlocks were planned as an Int class in 5e anyway but people complained so they got switched, which left us with the weird surplus in CHA casters. I always found the justification for warlocks as charisma based to be lacking anyway -- you used your mighty 14 charisma to wheel and deal the infernal prince or fae lord or elder god or whatever? Sure ya did.

Is that any worse than using your mighty 14 Int to outsmart them though?

At the end of the day, both Int and Cha are valuable when your goal is to enter into the most favorable agreement possible, and I would argue Wis can be useful too. Warlocks based on all three stats make sense to me.


Baby pact sounds better than the full level three thing. And could potentially have some fun RP implications (though nothing you couldn't do now, learning that your patron isn't really what you thought)

You could do it now in theory but your patron features would, if not give it away entirely, at least give you something concrete to go off of unless you're ignoring them in-universe or relying on fiat in some way. For instance, it's unlikely a fiendish patron would let you channel celestial light. Whereas simply delaying your patron to 3rd could mean for example that your character finds a shining book emblazoned with angel wings... that turns out to belong to an Erinyes.


Pretty much as I expected. I value the change in ability scores, don't particularly like the mini-pact. But then I do not value placing the subclasses all at the same level. I do not like that clerics, warlocks (and paladins) whose lore is tied to what makes up their subclass have to push it back several levels when it should be up in front. So, my response is pretty much what is expected. They're doing it. People apparently value it. I think it weakens the class fantasy, and I place more value on that than I do making everything run on the same class advancement pattern. WotC doesn't. It's not a game breaker, but it is something I think makes the part of the game I like fundamentally worse.

Not much else to say.

Paladins always took their Oath at 3rd level though?

[Atranen]

Pretty much as I expected. I value the change in ability scores, don't particularly like the mini-pact. But then I do not value placing the subclasses all at the same level. I do not like that clerics, warlocks (and paladins) whose lore is tied to what makes up their subclass have to push it back several levels when it should be up in front. So, my response is pretty much what is expected. They're doing it. People apparently value it. I think it weakens the class fantasy, and I place more value on that than I do making everything run on the same class advancement pattern. WotC doesn't. It's not a game breaker, but it is something I think makes the part of the game I like fundamentally worse.

Not much else to say.

This sums up my thoughts as well. Level 1 and 2 are being written off as "not important tutorial levels" in a way that emphasizes higher powered games and makes low level play less meaningful. They made a mistake with the 5E paladin (as anyone who has played one at level 1 can confirm), and it looks like they'll double down on it for the other classes.

[Dienekes]

Paladins always took their Oath at 3rd level though?

Which is why that was the class in parenthesis. And I thought that was dumb the first time I read the PHB. It'd be one thing if they didn't have any magical powers until they take their oath. But if you tell me "the oath is the source of their powers" and then give them those powers before they even get the oath, then your mechanics do not line up with your fluff. And I do not like it.

[Psyren]

Sorry, I was unclear.

Study to figure out how to approach the particular creature. I think Xanathar's gave us some pretty simple guidelines for parleying with monsters. I don't expect this to happen but maybe building on that, and using the new Study action. It's something anyone can do but warlocks strike me as particularly aimed at this. Just a musing.

Okay, I get you now.


Which is why that was the class in parenthesis. And I thought that was dumb the first time I read the PHB. It'd be one thing if they didn't have any magical powers until they take their oath. But if you tell me "the oath is the source of their powers" and then give them those powers before they even get the oath, then your mechanics do not line up with your fluff. And I do not like it.

Eh, I don't see a contradiction; the paladin entry says their oath is "a source of power," not the only one they possess.


Would be nice if they made Blade pact = STR as casting stat.

Wouldn't that make Blade pact incompatible (or at the very least suboptimal) with Hexblade?

[Unoriginal]

Wouldn't that make Blade pact incompatible (or at the very least suboptimal) with Hexblade?

If they wish to keep Hexblade, they could easily make it so that it lets you use your Blade pact with CHA.

But I don't think Hexblade (in its current form) will make the cut if they revise Pact of the Blade.

[LibraryOgre]

My version of psionics was based on the Warlock, and made the equivalent of your pact boon (which you got at 1st level) determine your Manifesting/Casting attribute... Psions were Int-based (and close to the Tomelock), Soulknives were Wisdom based (and close to the Bladelocks), and Wilders were Charisma based (and were not based on Chainlocks).

So, something like that might be considered... your minor pact determines your casting stat.

[Dienekes]

Eh, I don't see a contradiction; the paladin entry says their oath is "a source of power," not the only one they possess.


Let’s quote the whole section, yeah?



Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.


The line “a source of power” is descriptive of the oath itself, not the Paladin. It is one possible source of power that exists in the world. Not that the Paladin’s Oath is just one power that the Paladin has, among half a dozen others or whatever.

[Damon_Tor]

I really despise homogenized subclass levels. Is it cynical of me to think it's just a way they can save themselves labor by writing one subclass for 5 different classes in future products? And it comes at the expense of the very valid lore-abd-roleplay reasons certain classes should have their subclasses selected from day one.

I like warlocks having variable casting stats though. I always liked 4e's constitution-based warlock pacts. It would be cool to have a con caster again.

So mixed feelings on this.

[Goobahfish]

I actually prefer the new system. Firstly, I think dipping is the bane of the game as it emphasizes mechanical power over narrative logic. Having multiclassing require 3 levels to 'take off' makes it actually feel like a multiclass.

Secondly, the narrative of finding your 'pact item' before your patron is narratively more satisfying. Most fiction functions this way. I found the necronomicon... which gave me magic but I didn't understand where it was coming from and now I have bitten off more than I can chew. Same applies for evil cursed weapon and little demonic creature.

In terms of mechanics... who cares? Getting different abilities is kind of a non-issue. The only issue is that for two levels, the Warlock is not entirely sure who their patron is, just that they have one. It is not like they don't have a patron at level 1.

With the cleric it is a little bit more difficult obviously. The cleric is praying to someone? I suppose you could consider level 3 to be their 'confirmation' (i.e., this is the god for me). In greek mythology this was pretty common. Most people revere 'the gods', but it takes some incident to make 'this god, my god'.

[Kane0]

Is it cynical of me to think it's just a way they can save themselves labor by writing one subclass for 5 different classes in future products?

No, it isn't. There has already been at least one UA exploring that exact concept, and the response they got out of it was 'this would work much more smoothly if the classes you're making shared subclasses for actually had the same level breakpoints'

[Psyren]

Let’s quote the whole section, yeah?



The line “a source of power” is descriptive of the oath itself, not the Paladin. It is one possible source of power that exists in the world. Not that the Paladin’s Oath is just one power that the Paladin has, among half a dozen others or whatever.

Nothing in your quote says the oath is the only source of power the paladin has.

Yes, all paladins swear oaths. Yes, all oaths grant power. No, nothing in the game (2014 or 2024) says the paladin shouldn't have any powers before swearing said oath. That disconnect is all on you.


I really despise homogenized subclass levels. Is it cynical of me to think it's just a way they can save themselves labor by writing one subclass for 5 different classes in future products?

Of course they're going to do that, and that is going to be the modern, improved way to bring Prestige Classes back to D&D. Want to be a "Harper Agent?" Now you can enter that subclass with Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Wizard, Artificer etc without (a) being locked into one specific class only, (b) needing to plan out your entire build at level 1 to make sure you "qualify" in time, or (c) giving up everything else that makes your base class special. Win-win-win.


I actually prefer the new system. Firstly, I think dipping is the bane of the game as it emphasizes mechanical power over narrative logic. Having multiclassing require 3 levels to 'take off' makes it actually feel like a multiclass.

Secondly, the narrative of finding your 'pact item' before your patron is narratively more satisfying. Most fiction functions this way. I found the necronomicon... which gave me magic but I didn't understand where it was coming from and now I have bitten off more than I can chew. Same applies for evil cursed weapon and little demonic creature.

In terms of mechanics... who cares? Getting different abilities is kind of a non-issue. The only issue is that for two levels, the Warlock is not entirely sure who their patron is, just that they have one. It is not like they don't have a patron at level 1.

With the cleric it is a little bit more difficult obviously. The cleric is praying to someone? I suppose you could consider level 3 to be their 'confirmation' (i.e., this is the god for me). In greek mythology this was pretty common. Most people revere 'the gods', but it takes some incident to make 'this god, my god'.

All of this.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

With the cleric it is a little bit more difficult obviously. The cleric is praying to someone? I suppose you could consider level 3 to be their 'confirmation' (i.e., this is the god for me). In greek mythology this was pretty common. Most people revere 'the gods', but it takes some incident to make 'this god, my god'.

Strikes me as incredibly setting-dependent. Krynn's divine magic isn't Toril's isn't Eberron's. And not all gods and pantheons are going to be evenly open to latecoming worshipers, plus the complicating factor of being cleric of an ideal... Meh. I'm whelmed, and closer to under- than over-.

[LibraryOgre]

Secondly, the narrative of finding your 'pact item' before your patron is narratively more satisfying. Most fiction functions this way. I found the necronomicon... which gave me magic but I didn't understand where it was coming from and now I have bitten off more than I can chew. Same applies for evil cursed weapon and little demonic creature.


Conversely, you've got stuff like Goetic sorcerers [Warlocks], or people who "sell their soul to the devil for cornchips". The "I made a pact with an otherworldly creature, knowing full well what I'm doing" is pretty strongly represented in fiction, too.

[Dienekes]

Nothing in your quote says the oath is the only source of power the paladin has.

Yes, all paladins swear oaths. Yes, all oaths grant power. No, nothing in the game (2014 or 2024) says the paladin shouldn't have any powers before swearing said oath. That disconnect is all on you.


Alright. What is it? What are the mechanics of it? How have all paladins gained it?

Though, truthfully, this argument is going to go nowhere. You can rationalize anything if you want and try hard enough. I prefer games where you don’t have to. Sorcerers get their magic from their bloodline or magic infusion or whatever. So they should not mechanically gain powers until they actually have it in their mechanics. Warlocks with their patrons. Paladins with their oaths. The fantasy of it for me is weakened when you wring your hands and have to make up whole new sources of power just to get the class to work.

[Goobahfish]

Strikes me as incredibly setting-dependent. Krynn's divine magic isn't Toril's isn't Eberron's. And not all gods and pantheons are going to be evenly open to latecoming worshipers, plus the complicating factor of being cleric of an ideal... Meh. I'm whelmed, and closer to under- than over-.

Indeed, this is true. The other head-canon can be that such gods don't grant specific rewards until a certain number of 'years of service'. I.e., at level 1 you might be a worshiper of Koko the chocolate god, but you don't get your brew magical mocha until level 3. The real narrative disconnect here will be for the player who plays cleric and doesn't choose a specific god and then changes their mind at level 2 as to what subclass they actually want.


Conversely, you've got stuff like Goetic sorcerers [Warlocks], or people who "sell their soul to the devil for cornchips". The "I made a pact with an otherworldly creature, knowing full well what I'm doing" is pretty strongly represented in fiction, too.

That is entirely true too. Like the cleric example above it only breaks the narrative fiction when the player at level 2 has a change of heart and becomes an old-one worshipper rather than a fiend. Roleplaying the 'I made a pact with the devil' and they gave me this book (rather than they gave me power x) seems pretty reasonable. I actually prefer the physical manifestation of the pact rather than some nebulous 'spell-like' ability.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Indeed, this is true. The other head-canon can be that such gods don't grant specific rewards until a certain number of 'years of service'. I.e., at level 1 you might be a worshiper of Koko the chocolate god, but you don't get your brew magical mocha until level 3. The real narrative disconnect here will be for the player who plays cleric and doesn't choose a specific god and then changes their mind at level 2 as to what subclass they actually want.


Feels a bit like a solution in search of a problem to me, which is how I've felt about most of the things I've seen.

[Jophiel]

Is that any worse than using your mighty 14 Int to outsmart them though?
I've never heard of anyone framing an Int based warlock as "outsmarting" their patron. You'd use your intelligence to discover/locate your patron in the classic sense of Lovecraftian research or Faustian dealing. You don't try to out-legalese them during the contract portion though.

[Kane0]

I've never heard of anyone framing an Int based warlock as "outsmarting" their patron. You'd use your intelligence to discover/locate your patron in the classic sense of Lovecraftian research or Faustian dealing. You don't try to out-legalese them during the contract portion though.

Hey, you can try. Sometimes they might even let you think you did :P

[Psyren]

Conversely, you've got stuff like Goetic sorcerers [Warlocks], or people who "sell their soul to the devil for cornchips". The "I made a pact with an otherworldly creature, knowing full well what I'm doing" is pretty strongly represented in fiction, too.

While that's true, even if you go in with eyes wide open, that doesn't mean your new boss has to give you everything up front. Having to prove yourself a bit before they invest more of themselves/the good stuff makes sense to me honestly.


Alright. What is it? What are the mechanics of it? How have all paladins gained it?

One of the goals of the 2024 paladin is to make that very question less vague than it was before.

"Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class. The final oath, taken at 3rd level, is the culmination of a Paladin’s training. Some characters with this class don’t consider themselves true Paladins until they have reached 3rd level and made this oath. For others, the actual swearing of the oath is a formality, an official stamp on what was already true in the Paladin’s heart."


You can rationalize anything if you want and try hard enough.

Yeah, that's called creativity.

[Theodoxus]

I have no problem with this. The first Warlock I DM'd, I asked what pact he was going to pick, and he said 'Tome', so I gave him a tome at first level. It didn't unlock any magic until 3rd level, but it provided him a solid connection to his patron. I worked it like Tom Riddle's Diary in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

In D&Done, I could see doing exactly that, only the character doesn't know who the patron is. Mysterious notes in the Tome, cryptic sayings by the Chain, whispers in the dark from the Blade or Talisman... sounds like fun fodder for DMs who otherwise just ignore the implications of making a Pact in the first place.

For Clerics, I also don't have a problem. My solution is to have 1 God, many Denominations, but I can totally see any Gods in any setting simply granting power to a Cleric and waiting to see if they make it 'to adulthood' before revealing themselves (the Player then picks a God/Domain) at 3rd level. While character deaths are a lot rarer in the early levels than they were in previous editions, it can still happen. Makes sense that a God won't pour their divine might into a shell that could easily die to a goblin arrow at any moment. Also, there isn't really anything that HAS to happen, domain wise, at 1st level. Most of the options gained from a level 1 domain in 5E are granted as options at 1st and 2nd level in D&DOne... and do you really need a couple free 1st level spells to make you feel special?

Paladins have always been weird. Especially the ones that get to 2nd level for spellcasting and fighting style, and then MC to Sorc or whatever. Without an Oath, are they even Paladins?

My fondest wish is that MCing dies in its current form. I know this is super unpopular opinion, but I'm hoping MCing goes back to the 4th Ed style of feats. It would be great if MCing and Half-racing uses mirrored mechanics. Then these weird freaks of divine power never crop up.

ETA: Thank you for the 2024 view on Oaths, Psyren - I had forgotten that, but I recall when I first read it, it makes perfect sense. Reminds of a LARP that did similar, Knights created their own Oaths, but didn't become Paladins (or Anti-Paladins) until they reached a certain level in the Knight class AND had demonstrated week in and week out that they were following their Oaths (as agreed upon by the Circle of Knights).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

vile Kyubey

There is nothing wrong with Kyubey, it's just granting your wish to stop the heat death of the universe.

On topic, I always liked the idea of the Pactboone up front since that shapes so much of how a Warlock functions. I also don't mind the stats, but my table in general allows moving of casting stats so long as it makes sense in the game. There's been Int Warlocks in my games for years.


For Clerics, I also don't have a problem.

You don't even have to do that. You can follow a god without being given specific extra powers. Correllon welcomes those who follow them. When they have shown devotion (Gotten to level 3) he guides their powers where it will most serve his aims.

[KorvinStarmast]

I had been wondering if we would eventually get "patrons" that are to Chain and Tome what the Hexblade is to Blade. Simpler to get rid of hexblade, and go back to the patron as originally designed. :smallyuk:

[Kane0]

Yeah Hexblade was a bit of an oopsie, should've just errata'd Blade pact with some extra invocation support if the intent was to make gishlock a more viable option. Hell even Bladetrips could have been used well in this area, and those were already called out as a bit of an oopsie when they were released too.

[Atranen]

"Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class. The final oath, taken at 3rd level, is the culmination of a Paladin’s training. Some characters with this class don’t consider themselves true Paladins until they have reached 3rd level and made this oath. For others, the actual swearing of the oath is a formality, an official stamp on what was already true in the Paladin’s heart."

Reading this again with the subclass at 3 issue in sight--doesnt this imply you ought to choose a subclass at 1, but not derive any specific mechanical benefit from it? You have to be a paladin of devotion or whatever to get the starter oaths.

It just seems like a loss to me if clerics are choosing their deity, sorcerers their origin, warlocks their patron, and paladins their oath, all at first level...

...only for that to have no effect. In that sense, warlocks getting some mechanical differentiation is a good thing.

[Psyren]

I had been wondering if we would eventually get "patrons" that are to Chain and Tome what the Hexblade is to Blade.

This is their chance to do that, only now you could get to be a full bladelock while serving the Archfey, the Fiend or any other patron.

I think the tie between the patron and the pact boon should really be up to the player and the DM working in concert. Some patrons can fit with any pact boon trivially (e.g. a demonic patron could express itself via a possessed blade, a possessed book, or a quasit on your shoulder in equal measure) while others might require some more imagination (a fey patron's tome, rather than a grimoire, might be a book of whimsical fairy tales or poems.) Personally, I'd rather not prescribe or proscribe any given patron/boon combo.


Reading this again with the subclass at 3 issue in sight--doesnt this imply you ought to choose a subclass at 1, but not derive any specific mechanical benefit from it? You have to be a paladin of devotion or whatever to get the starter oaths.

Not necessarily; preliminary oaths that are common to all paladins would be trivial to devise for those first two levels. "I vow to hone both my arms and my spirit," etc


It just seems like a loss to me if clerics are choosing their deity, sorcerers their origin, warlocks their patron, and paladins their oath, all at first level...

...only for that to have no effect. In that sense, warlocks getting some mechanical differentiation is a good thing.

Technically those first three are being chosen, moreso than doing the choosing. Even for clerics, while the domain represents which aspect of your deity you want to focus on, both the 2014 and 2024 versions of the cleric entail a deity taking interest in you.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Simpler to get rid of hexblade, and go back to the patron as originally designed. :smallyuk:

Or excise the class entirely and open up a version of Pact Magic to everyone.

Receiving magical instruction from powerful figures is a theme that any class could use. Clerics might benefit from the tutelage of an Angel or Saint, a Druid from an Ancient Elemental or Dragon, and Sorcerers and Wizards could have anything be their mentor.

The Warlock class is a major story telling limitation, if one feels compelled to protect the Warlock’s niche from encroachment by other classes.

[GooeyChewie]

Technically those first three are being chosen, moreso than doing the choosing. Even for clerics, while the domain represents which aspect of your deity you want to focus on, both the 2014 and 2024 versions of the cleric entail a deity taking interest in you.
In the context of the fiction, those first three are being chosen more so than doing the choosing. But in the context of the game, the player who creates the character is doing the choosing. And since the stated purpose of moving all subclasses to start at level 3 was so that players would not need to make as many (or as permanent) choices at level 1, setting classes up such that players still need to make those choices but simply don't get the benefits of those choices for two more levels seems counterproductive.

[Psyren]

In the context of the fiction, those first three are being chosen more so than doing the choosing. But in the context of the game, the player who creates the character is doing the choosing. And since the stated purpose of moving all subclasses to start at level 3 was so that players would not need to make as many (or as permanent) choices at level 1, setting classes up such that players still need to make those choices but simply don't get the benefits of those choices for two more levels seems counterproductive.

But you do get benefits. A level 1 cleric can channel divinity and cast spells, both of which come directly from the god. Similarly, a paladin gains magical powers at level 1 that set them apart from a fighter.

[werescythe]

I see a lot of people saying Int and Chr, but why not Wis. Personally I think it could be interesting to see a cleric struggle between serving their god and the entity that saved their life (or the life of their friend).

Even a druid invoking a patron as a last resort to save the forest or something else, could be intriguing (both for story and gameplay).

[Kane0]

Even a druid invoking a patron as a last resort to save the forest or something else, could be intriguing (both for story and gameplay).

Not to mention druid/feylock is at least as valid as ancients pally/feylock

[Mastikator]

I've never heard of anyone framing an Int based warlock as "outsmarting" their patron. You'd use your intelligence to discover/locate your patron in the classic sense of Lovecraftian research or Faustian dealing. You don't try to out-legalese them during the contract portion though.

Isn't that the plot of Faust that he tricks the devil and eventually wins? (at least in some versions of the story)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I see a lot of people saying Int and Chr, but why not Wis. Personally I think it could be interesting to see a cleric struggle between serving their god and the entity that saved their life (or the life of their friend).

Even a druid invoking a patron as a last resort to save the forest or something else, could be intriguing (both for story and gameplay).

At least in 5E, Int is a weaker attribute than Cha. Cha's power comes from two things: social skill bonuses, which are helpful in every campaign and critical in many; and SAD synergy through hexblade, paladin and sorcerer. Int is mostly a spellcasting stat; the associated skills aren't game-defining and there aren't a lot of easily dippable synergies. Wis, though, is arguably a better attribute than Cha. Shillelagh allows for melee SAD, Wis skills are critical (prewritten 5E adventures use Wis-based Insight a lot more than Int-based Investigation), and Wis saving throws are both common and important.

Flavorwise I have no problem with it and it makes a certain amount of sense.

[paladinn]

The "No-subclasses-till-L3" thing makes sense for some classes and not so much for others. Fighters, rogues, etc.? Definitely. Get some "basic" experience before you specialize. But casters? Maybe not. For clerics and warlocks, so much of what they have is based on their relationship with an entity. Paladins are based on their oaths. Wizards are defined by their spell school. A lot depends on the nature of the subclasses, and how much the subclasses define the character.

It'll be interesting to see how/if WotC decides to address that issue. But if they do, I think they will need to give thought to "generic" versions of each class. What if a player doesn't Want to specialize? What "school" would Merlin have been? If a character is a prophet of "the most high God", what would be his/her domain?

[Amnestic]

I guess the explanation for Clerics is that they get given powers (spells) from their gods, but not the full breadth of their domain until 3rd. It's not like gods dump all their powers on a cleric immediately, so it kinda works. Ditto for patrons.

I would much prefer if all classes got their subclasses at 1st from a narrative perspective but I understand from a mechanics perspective (frontloading) why they might not want to. Ultimately it just means that most of my games will start a 3rd as a minimum so they everyone gets their stuff 'equally'.

[Jophiel]

Isn't that the plot of Faust that he tricks the devil and eventually wins? (at least in some versions of the story)
Can't speak for every version but generally no. Either Faust dies and goes to hell or else Faust attains salvation via his guilt over the suicide of a woman he seduced (and her intercession from the afterlife). So he arguably "wins" but not through persuasion or deception but through divine grace. In The Devil & Daniel Webster, the guy who strikes the Faustian bargain is saved by Daniel Webster's legal case but it wasn't Webster who made the deal.

However, Faust is depicted as a very educated and intelligent man and the core part of his bargain was that he wanted even more knowledge and was willing to trade his soul for it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Not to mention druid/feylock is at least as valid as ancients pally/feylock

That is part of the issue with the Warlock class: it is used more like humus, for multi-classing dips then as a single concept.

If the Warlock is used primarily, to add flavor or power to another concept, then perhaps there should not be a Warlock class. Pact Magic and Patrons can then be detailed as a Supernatural Boon….and opened to everyone.

[Saelethil]

I really like the flavor of finding a weapon, tome, or amulet and gaining power through it only to find out later that the deal meant more than you thought.
I also like the concept of knowing what (or with whom) you’re dealing with but only being given a token until you have proven your usefulness.
Needless to say, I’m a fan of this change.
As for changing casting stat, I would prefer that it be an official option for most classes. The only ones I have trouble imagining with other casting stats would be Wizards and Artificers.

[GooeyChewie]

But you do get benefits. A level 1 cleric can channel divinity and cast spells, both of which come directly from the god. Similarly, a paladin gains magical powers at level 1 that set them apart from a fighter.

Yes, absolutely correct. And really, that's my point. The goal of pushing all subclasses to level 3 was to make creating a level 1 character less confusing. But I find explaining that you have features due to a an oath/patron/sorcerer origin, but that those are subclasses and you won't actually pick them for two more levels is more confusing.

For Clerics, I can at least justify that you can have a deity before you specialize into a domain. For Warlocks, it looks like the 'baby pact' is going to be the bridge, though I'm hoping to get more information on that before passing judgement. For Sorcerers, I'm anticipating the possibility that the origin will be reworked into something more like Holy Order, with the subclass theming changing entirely. For Paladins, the thematic problem of getting powers before you make the oath definitely exists, though it is in the category of "not fixed from 5e" rather than "new problem introduced."

[Slipjig]

I wonder what this will do to HexWarrior. A lot of people dip Hexblade to become Cha-SAD. Is a warlock dip going to need to go 3 levels to get it?

If that happens, I for one will be happy. I've always thought "I'm an uncoordinated klutz with noodle arms (e.g. dumped strength and dex), but I'm a master swordsman because I'm SEXY!" was exceedingly dumb.

The only ones I have trouble imagining with other casting stats would be Wizards and Artificers.
I actually have an easy time imaging Artificers or Wizards wanting an easier route to power making a pact. I actually think Cleric is a much bigger stretch, unless the entity you pact with is a servant of your deity. I imagine a lot of deities would have strong feelings about one of their clerics also drawing power from a fiend, fey, or GOO.

[Unoriginal]

Isn't that the plot of Faust that he tricks the devil and eventually wins? (at least in some versions of the story)

The whole point of Faust is that he can't trick the devil, and if he "wins" in any version it's only when he gets divine pardon.

There are plenty of stories where the devil is tricked, outwitted or the like, though.

[LibraryOgre]

The whole point of Faust is that he can't trick the devil, and if he "wins" in any version it's only when he gets divine pardon.

There are plenty of stories where the devil is tricked, outwitted or the like, though.

After all, you can fiddle with all sorts of stories. Fiddling with stories is gold, whether it's in Cormyr or Georgia. :smallbiggrin:

[Witty Username]

I really despise homogenized subclass levels. Is it cynical of me to think it's just a way they can save themselves labor by writing one subclass for 5 different classes in future products? And it comes at the expense of the very valid lore-abd-roleplay reasons certain classes should have their subclasses selected from day one.


I do think this model would benefit from everyone getting their subclass at 1st. I personally don't mind shared subclasses, there are concepts that inherently fit multiple classes, shadowdancer (the 3.5 word for way of shadow) is my ready to go example since is was originally a prestige class designed for rogue.

Given we arleady get an average of 2 subclasses a splat book, I doubt much labor would be saved anyway.


If that happens, I for one will be happy. I've always thought "I'm an uncoordinated klutz with noodle arms (e.g. dumped strength and dex), but I'm a master swordsman because I'm SEXY!" was exceedingly dumb.


This is a problem I have low key with cha casting in general, but if it helps, it is more or less a pact enchantment, you fight better due to magical power shaping your abilities, and so things like strength just matter less.

[Psyren]

I see a lot of people saying Int and Chr, but why not Wis. Personally I think it could be interesting to see a cleric struggle between serving their god and the entity that saved their life (or the life of their friend).

Even a druid invoking a patron as a last resort to save the forest or something else, could be intriguing (both for story and gameplay).

I'm in favor of Wis as a Warlock option.


At least in 5E, Int is a weaker attribute than Cha. Cha's power comes from two things: social skill bonuses, which are helpful in every campaign and critical in many; and SAD synergy through hexblade, paladin and sorcerer. Int is mostly a spellcasting stat; the associated skills aren't game-defining and there aren't a lot of easily dippable synergies. Wis, though, is arguably a better attribute than Cha. Shillelagh allows for melee SAD, Wis skills are critical (prewritten 5E adventures use Wis-based Insight a lot more than Int-based Investigation), and Wis saving throws are both common and important.

Flavorwise I have no problem with it and it makes a certain amount of sense.

Cha is more valuable but conversely, your chances of someone else in the party being able to cover it are much higher. Even without Warlocks, there are at least 3 other base classes incentivised to invest in that stat, as well as a smattering of subclasses outside that set like Swashbuckler or Purple Dragon Knight. Whereas for an Int focus, only one person in the entire campaign may be interested in covering off on that for the whole group. Giving the person who wants to be the smarty another option in core is excellent in my book.


I guess the explanation for Clerics is that they get given powers (spells) from their gods, but not the full breadth of their domain until 3rd. It's not like gods dump all their powers on a cleric immediately, so it kinda works. Ditto for patrons.


I really like the flavor of finding a weapon, tome, or amulet and gaining power through it only to find out later that the deal meant more than you thought.
I also like the concept of knowing what (or with whom) you’re dealing with but only being given a token until you have proven your usefulness.
Needless to say, I’m a fan of this change.

Agreed.


Yes, absolutely correct. And really, that's my point. The goal of pushing all subclasses to level 3 was to make creating a level 1 character less confusing. But I find explaining that you have features due to a an oath/patron/sorcerer origin, but that those are subclasses and you won't actually pick them for two more levels is more confusing.

I genuinely don't see how. For the oath, I provided the quote, the first few oaths you make are common to all paladins (just like all paladins have a set of base class features in common.) Similarly, there are commonalities to the way all sorcerers access and express arcane power, as exemplified by their spell list as well as their font of magic. And lastly, level 1 and 2 warlocks do have a patron, they just either don't know everything about it or it's holding back some of its gifts until you prove yourself at 3rd level (and continues holding back well beyond that.) All of these fit with the 2014 versions just fine.



For Paladins, the thematic problem of getting powers before you make the oath definitely exists, though it is in the category of "not fixed from 5e" rather than "new problem introduced."

You don't get your powers "before you make the oath" because it's not "the oath." It's the FINAL oath (in a series).

In fact, this actually improves the paladin's fiction. If it was truly only one oath back in 2014, where were your spellcasting and lay on hands coming from at levels 1 and 2? Why would your oath to Conquest and Vengeance grant the same powers as oaths to Devotion and Redemption? Hell, why did Oathbreakers keep any powers at all, let alone arguably getting even stronger?

[Theodoxus]

Eh, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch (Warlock), are all interchangeable in literature, I don't see why the name matters, in universe.

I consider anyone who uses a spellbook to be a Wizard, regardless if their power is Arcane, Divine, or Primal in nature. Going back to full Vancian casting tends to be part of that, but I know that's another super unpopular opinion.

A Sorcerer should be capable of creating magic from nothing but their singular will. Whether that's a 5E style Charisma based Sorcerer or a 4E style Constitution based Sorcerer; I can definitely see a Wis based Sorcerer using their willpower to change the world around them. Sorcerer's shouldn't need material components. This would naturally limit them to spells that don't have pricy (over 5gp would be a decent cut off) consumed components. And probably up to 100gp for non-consumed components (so they could still cast Chromatic Orb and Identify, for instance).

Witches and Warlocks are the instrument wielders, whether that's a cauldron to brew potions and poisons, or a wand to channel their power through. 5Es incarnation emphasizes the Patronic role over self-taught hedge magic, and that's fine, but there is definitely space to allow for something like the old 2E Adept - a prototype of the 1/3 caster that has a similar spell list (though limited to 3rd or 4th level spells) as the 5E Bard. It would be pretty cool to have Warlocks being able to access all three power sources, but limited to 5th level spells max; Spells shouldn't be the defining thing though, but almost like an afterthought, or a boon that provides a thematic boost to their power - but I'd far prefer Warlocks go back to their 3E incarnation; unlimited at-will powers along the lines of EB, but differentiated. I'd love to see Eldritch Glaive come back as an augment to a Blade pact. Pull Alchemy out of the Artificer and grant it as a Warlock boon instead. Things of that nature.

[Slipjig]

Isn't that the plot of Faust that he tricks the devil and eventually wins? (at least in some versions of the story)

In the original, no, he goes to hell at the end, after Gretchen, the woman he originally needed help seducing, is executed for murdering their bastard son. It's a cautionary tale.

In Goethe's re-telling, God takes pity on Faust and cancels the contract after Gretchen prays for him to intervene (he doesn't do anything to save Gretchen from the noose, though it's specified she goes to Heaven afterwards).

But I can totally imagine Fiends actively propagating either Goethe's version or versions where Faust got out of it by tricking Mephistopholes, though, just because that might encourage other foolish mortals to try to do the same.

[Slipjig]

This is a problem I have low key with cha casting in general, but if it helps, it is more or less a pact enchantment, you fight better due to magical power shaping your abilities, and so things like strength just matter less.

I mean, I completely get that, and I understand that a lot of people's fantasy is a cheerleader with a battle axe, but it just doesn't vibe for me. I'd probably object to it less if it was flavored as gun-fu with magic blasts and shields, like Cypher from Castlevania (though she's clearly INT-based).

[Atranen]

I genuinely don't see how. For the oath, I provided the quote, the first few oaths you make are common to all paladins (just like all paladins have a set of base class features in common.) Similarly, there are commonalities to the way all sorcerers access and express arcane power, as exemplified by their spell list as well as their font of magic. And lastly, level 1 and 2 warlocks do have a patron, they just either don't know everything about it or it's holding back some of its gifts until you prove yourself at 3rd level (and continues holding back well beyond that.) All of these fit with the 2014 versions just fine.

That's one interpretation, but not a compelling one regarding paladin oaths imo. They never explicitly stated the 1st and 2nd level "oaths" are common to all paladins. The one you offer, "hone my arms and spirit" is generic--and indeed any example must be very generic, to fit conquest and vengeance and devotion and ancients. Is that really all it takes to get divine powers these days?

So I don't care for the solution. A better reading of the current paladin text, "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class", says that the "body of oaths" taken by each subclass are different. That works better narratively.

To put it another way--shouldn't a level 1 (future) paladin of vengeance take oaths to different ideals than a (future) level 1 paladin of devotion? If the oaths are meaningful in any way (and admittedly the game is dispensing with this), these characters will be serving very different ideals. Their oaths should reflect that.



In fact, this actually improves the paladin's fiction. If it was truly only one oath back in 2014, where were your spellcasting and lay on hands coming from at levels 1 and 2? Why would your oath to Conquest and Vengeance grant the same powers as oaths to Devotion and Redemption? Hell, why did Oathbreakers keep any powers at all, let alone arguably getting even stronger?

Yes, you've discovered the complaint.

[Psyren]

Is that really all it takes to get divine powers these days?

1) No, it's not; you yourself have to be an exceptional individual to start with in order to gain a PC class - that goes for the noncaster ones too. Not every random joe can become a Fighter or Rogue either.

2) If you really think all you need is to swear an oath - tell me, where do you think Ranger powers come from? They're not even taking the lip service step of swearing an oath, nor are they explicitly chosen by a deity. Theirs come from "familiarity with the wilds." Any random Bear Grylls/Steve Irwin type can become "familiar with the wilds," and there are definitely way more of those in a pseudo-medieval society than in our world, but they don't attain supernatural powers. Why haven't you been complaining about that for the past decade?


So I don't care for the solution. A better reading of the current paladin text, "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class", says that the "body of oaths" taken by each subclass are different. That works better narratively.

So then where do the 1st and 2nd-level powers come from? Again, the 2024 paladin is no different than the 2014 paladin in that regard, so you can't pretend that attaining powers before subclass oath is somehow a departure from what came before.


Yes, you've discovered the complaint.

I've discovered its hypocrisy, yes.

[Atranen]

1) No, it's not; you yourself have to be an exceptional individual to start with in order to gain a PC class - that goes for the noncaster ones too. Not every random joe can become a Fighter or Rogue either.

2) If you really think all you need is to swear an oath - tell me, where do you think Ranger powers come from? They're not even taking the lip service step of swearing an oath, nor are they explicitly chosen by a deity. Theirs come from "familiarity with the wilds." Any random Bear Grylls/Steve Irwin type can become "familiar with the wilds," and there are definitely way more of those in a pseudo-medieval society than in our world, but they don't attain supernatural powers. Why haven't you been complaining about that for the past decade?

My point is more focused--a paladin channels divine power, relating to a specific set of ideals. Paladins serve a diverse set of ideals depending on subclass. No generic oath can capture the ideals that all paladins serve. Therefore the level 1 and 2 oaths must be specific.


So then where do the 1st and 2nd-level powers come from? Again, the 2024 paladin is no different than the 2014 paladin in that regard, so you can't pretend that attaining powers before subclass oath is somehow a departure from what came before

Correct. It was bad in 2014 and bad now.

[Psyren]

My point is more focused--a paladin channels divine power, relating to a specific set of ideals. Paladins serve a diverse set of ideals depending on subclass. No generic oath can capture the ideals that all paladins serve. Therefore the level 1 and 2 oaths must be specific.

No, there are things all paladins have in common regardless of how diverse their ideals are. There is no paladin that foregoes martial and magical training for instance, there is no paladin that neglects being able to heal, there is no paladin that isn't able to be aware of outer planar influence, and so on.


Correct. It was bad in 2014 and bad now.

I congratulate you on at least striving for consistency, but you're in the minority.

[Atranen]

No, there are things all paladins have in common regardless of how diverse their ideals are. There is no paladin that foregoes martial and magical training for instance, there is no paladin that neglects being able to heal, there is no paladin that isn't able to be aware of outer planar influence, and so on.

These are things they can do by virtue of an oath, not the oath itself. And the content of the oath itself differs markedly for different paladins.

I don't want to derail the thread, so you can have the last word. Cheers.

[Theodoxus]

Seems there are two ways of looking at Paladin Oaths. Either they're generic until they take their final affirming Oath at third level, as Psyren points out.

Something like: "I swear on [god/power/philosophy] that I shall Sense the Hidden, Divine the Fiend, the Psyker, the Mutant." - boom, Divine Sense.

"I swear I shall heal the wounded, be it me, or maybe others, in the name of this Oath." Boom, Lay on Hands.

"I swear to uphold the spellcasting provided by [god/power/philosophy] and to use such might to strike down our foes." - boom, Spellcasting and Divine Smite.

Then at third level, you swear two Oaths:

"I swear to keep my body pure of those things that strike others low." - Boom, Divine Health.
"I swear..." and then speak the tenants of your Holy Oath to become a follower of Devotion or Ancients or Conquest"

The other option is, you swear the same things, but include your tenants at 1st level - you're always a Conquest Paladin or whatever, but the Oath's powers don't fully kick in until 3rd level, because gamist reasons.

I prefer option 1. Option 2 is just as valid though.

[Psyren]

These are things they can do by virtue of an oath, not the oath itself.

This sentence makes no sense to me.


And the content of the oath itself differs markedly for different paladins.

The content of the final oath differs markedly, yes.


Seems there are two ways of looking at Paladin Oaths. Either they're generic until they take their final affirming Oath at third level, as Psyren points out.

Something like: "I swear on [god/power/philosophy] that I shall Sense the Hidden, Divine the Fiend, the Psyker, the Mutant." - boom, Divine Sense.

"I swear I shall heal the wounded, be it me, or maybe others, in the name of this Oath." Boom, Lay on Hands.

"I swear to uphold the spellcasting provided by [god/power/philosophy] and to use such might to strike down our foes." - boom, Spellcasting and Divine Smite.

Then at third level, you swear two Oaths:

"I swear to keep my body pure of those things that strike others low." - Boom, Divine Health.
"I swear..." and then speak the tenants of your Holy Oath to become a follower of Devotion or Ancients or Conquest"

The other option is, you swear the same things, but include your tenants at 1st level - you're always a Conquest Paladin or whatever, but the Oath's powers don't fully kick in until 3rd level, because gamist reasons.

I prefer option 1. Option 2 is just as valid though.

Option 1 is exactly right. I agree that Option 2 is inoffensive however.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The "No-subclasses-till-L3" thing makes sense for some classes and not so much for others. Fighters, rogues, etc.? Definitely. Get some "basic" experience before you specialize. But casters? Maybe not. For clerics and warlocks, so much of what they have is based on their relationship with an entity. Paladins are based on their oaths. Wizards are defined by their spell school. A lot depends on the nature of the subclasses, and how much the subclasses define the character.

Except all of that can easily be written as a subclass at level 3.

Clerics feel the connection to their deity and begin exhibiting Divine power, then as their connection deepens more specific powers tied to what they're meant to serve come into being.

Warlocks finding a strange item that slowly opens up, great. Warlocks Contacting an entity who hands them an item and says "Go prove your value and I will teach you more" also works for the level 3.

Paladins swear their oath and after showing devotion and loyalty to their path develop specific powers. Or Paladins are trained to be holy warriors and in their early time the proper path calls out to them resulting in the final oath at level 3.

Wizards are taught the basics before specialization. That's already in the Lore and apprentice wizards everywhere learn the basics of Arcane magic before choosing a specialty. Similar to real life Doctors who have years before they choose to be Surgeons or Dermatologists or what have you and then even as a Surgeon it's several more years before they choose a specialty.

In light of a Mechanical Balance decision to put everything at level 3, all of the above lore works fine.


Seems there are two ways of looking at Paladin Oaths. Either they're generic until they take their final affirming Oath at third level, as Psyren points out.

The other option is, you swear the same things, but include your tenants at 1st level - you're always a Conquest Paladin or whatever, but the Oath's powers don't fully kick in until 3rd level, because gamist reasons.

I prefer option 1. Option 2 is just as valid though.


For a game I prefer Option 1, but I've seen Option 2 work fine in fiction. It's the case for Knight Radiants in the Stormlight Archive.

There's 10 types of Radiant, but the First Oaths are always the same: "Strength before Weakness, Life before death, Journey before Destination."

It's not until the later oaths that the individual orders diverge, Windrunners swearing to Protect those who Cannot Protect themselves, Bondsmiths vow to bring people together, Lightweavers have no other oaths but must balance their lies and truths, etc.

[Atranen]

Seems there are two ways of looking at Paladin Oaths. Either they're generic until they take their final affirming Oath at third level, as Psyren points out.

Something like: "I swear on [god/power/philosophy] that I shall Sense the Hidden, Divine the Fiend, the Psyker, the Mutant." - boom, Divine Sense.

"I swear I shall heal the wounded, be it me, or maybe others, in the name of this Oath." Boom, Lay on Hands.

"I swear to uphold the spellcasting provided by [god/power/philosophy] and to use such might to strike down our foes." - boom, Spellcasting and Divine Smite.

Then at third level, you swear two Oaths:

"I swear to keep my body pure of those things that strike others low." - Boom, Divine Health.
"I swear..." and then speak the tenants of your Holy Oath to become a follower of Devotion or Ancients or Conquest"

The other option is, you swear the same things, but include your tenants at 1st level - you're always a Conquest Paladin or whatever, but the Oath's powers don't fully kick in until 3rd level, because gamist reasons.

I prefer option 1. Option 2 is just as valid though.

This is a good summary; I still don't care for how generic the oaths are. Imo, a 1st level paladin of devotion should already be taking oaths that relate to justice, virtue and order; I think the content of the oaths ought to be that, rather than a generic 'sense the hidden'. I want that flavor to be present from first level and to manifest mechanically.

Option 2 solves that, but denying mechanical manifestations for (unnecessary) gamist reasons also strikes me as a mistake.

[GooeyChewie]

I genuinely don't see how. For the oath, I provided the quote, the first few oaths you make are common to all paladins (just like all paladins have a set of base class features in common.) Similarly, there are commonalities to the way all sorcerers access and express arcane power, as exemplified by their spell list as well as their font of magic. And lastly, level 1 and 2 warlocks do have a patron, they just either don't know everything about it or it's holding back some of its gifts until you prove yourself at 3rd level (and continues holding back well beyond that.) All of these fit with the 2014 versions just fine.
The UA attributes the oaths a Paladin takes at levels 1 and 2 to their subclass, which isn't chosen until level 3. The Warlock has a patron at levels 1 and 2, and it is the same patron the player chooses at level 3. Assuming the Sorcerer subclass is still their origin, then they have that origin at levels 1 and 2 even though the player doesn't choose it until level 3. I find it more confusing to explain to players that they have their oath/patron/origin at level 1 but then choose it at level 3 than I would if they just got the subclass at level 1.

Regarding "common" oaths, here's the quote (emphases mine):

Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class. The final oath, taken at 3rd level, is the culmination of a Paladin’s training.

The whole body of oaths, starting with the ones upon joining the class (levels 1 and 2), belong to the subclass, even though you the player don't choose the "final oath" subclass until level 3. I'm hoping that Warlock and Sorcerer are presented in a way which makes more sense.


You don't get your powers "before you make the oath" because it's not "the oath." It's the FINAL oath (in a series).

In fact, this actually improves the paladin's fiction. If it was truly only one oath back in 2014, where were your spellcasting and lay on hands coming from at levels 1 and 2? Why would your oath to Conquest and Vengeance grant the same powers as oaths to Devotion and Redemption? Hell, why did Oathbreakers keep any powers at all, let alone arguably getting even stronger?

If you're trying to convince me that the 2014 Paladin doesn't make sense at levels 1 and 2, I already agree. But the new version, where your character makes oaths at levels 1 and 2 that you the player don't decide until level 3, isn't better in my opinion, at least not in a thematic sense. A player who builds a playtest Paladin at level 1 and progresses through each level before reading the next gets asked at 3rd level what retcon they'd like to apply to retroactively justify their level 1 and 2 features (or rather in the case of the playtest, get told that Devotion is the only retcon currently available).

[Slipjig]

Actually, a Warlock can trade out patrons over the course of their career. Bryseis Kakistos in the Brimstone Angels novels started out learning magic from a book, and then traded up on patrons a few times (though they were all fiends in her case). So it's possible that the item that is the source of the baby pact is out there as a sort of "farm team" to look for Warlocks who are worth bringing up to the Majors with a real pact.

And it's certainly possible that a character who has been successful at levels 1-2 might have attracted the attention of a different potential patron. Or if the are Chainlocks, possibly their Chained Entity is now out there as their agent talking to multiple more-powerdul entities who might pact with them.

As for the whole paladin discussion, this really only seems like a problem if the player genuinely hasn't picked a subclass when they start, and I think that's pretty rare. And even if that IS the case, most of the subclasses overlap enough that you could have some fairly generic initial knightly oaths (with Conquest and maybe Vengence being the exceptions).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

If you're trying to convince me that the 2014 Paladin doesn't make sense at levels 1 and 2, I already agree. But the new version, where your character makes oaths at levels 1 and 2 that you the player don't decide until level 3, isn't better in my opinion, at least not in a thematic sense. A player who builds a playtest Paladin at level 1 and progresses through each level before reading the next gets asked at 3rd level what retcon they'd like to apply to retroactively justify their level 1 and 2 features (or rather in the case of the playtest, get told that Devotion is the only retcon currently available).

Yay mixing roleplaying requirements and mechanics in ways that make both worse!

[Pixel_Kitsune]

If you're trying to convince me that the 2014 Paladin doesn't make sense at levels 1 and 2, I already agree. But the new version, where your character makes oaths at levels 1 and 2 that you the player don't decide until level 3, isn't better in my opinion, at least not in a thematic sense. A player who builds a playtest Paladin at level 1 and progresses through each level before reading the next gets asked at 3rd level what retcon they'd like to apply to retroactively justify their level 1 and 2 features (or rather in the case of the playtest, get told that Devotion is the only retcon currently available).

Thankfully that's not the issue.

You swear a general oath and live up to it, then you take on new oaths or aspects of the oath.

As I've mentioned before, Knight Radiants in Stormlight are great Paladin Analogies (Well, really combo Warlock/Paladins with Blade Pact, but..).

First a prospective WindRunner takes the vows "Strength before Weakness, Life before Death, Journey Before Destination". This let's them draw on the magic of that world for basic healing and endurance.

Second a Windrunner vows "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves." Which unlocks their specific magical powers and deepens the bond of their oath.

Third a Windrunner vows "I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is just." Which increases their powers and bonds their Oath Spirit to be able to manifest as a morphic weapon that cuts souls.

Fourth a Windrunner vows "I will accept there are those I cannot protect." Which further increases their powers and brings more spirits to bear in the form of their Shardplate which can deflect anything and surround to shield others.

The moment someone swears the first Ideal they're a Radiant. But it's only the second Ideal that they get powers unique to their order.

[Psyren]

The UA attributes the oaths a Paladin takes at levels 1 and 2 to their subclass, which isn't chosen until level 3.

Well yeah, that's what a "culmination" means, your character is building on a foundation. That foundation does not have to be unique to each specialization. A wizard's subclass represents a focus on a given school or technique that builds on the training they began when they entered the class. A druid isn't eligible to join/be bestowed with a circle until they've picked up the basics of druidic magic. A paladin may or may not have a specific specialization in mind when they enter the class, but until they've covered the basic tenets that aspiration doesn't matter, and it can even change if the paladin's outlook does prior to 3rd level.




If you're trying to convince me that the 2014 Paladin doesn't make sense at levels 1 and 2, I already agree. But the new version, where your character makes oaths at levels 1 and 2 that you the player don't decide until level 3, isn't better in my opinion, at least not in a thematic sense. A player who builds a playtest Paladin at level 1 and progresses through each level before reading the next gets asked at 3rd level what retcon they'd like to apply to retroactively justify their level 1 and 2 features (or rather in the case of the playtest, get told that Devotion is the only retcon currently available).

*points at sig*

If you view that common foundation as unique to each subclass and picking a different one as a retcon then of course you're going to break the fiction. But you can just as easily not do that.

[Atranen]

Regarding "common" oaths, here's the quote (emphases mine):

Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class. The final oath, taken at 3rd level, is the culmination of a Paladin’s training.

The whole body of oaths, starting with the ones upon joining the class (levels 1 and 2), belong to the subclass, even though you the player don't choose the "final oath" subclass until level 3. I'm hoping that Warlock and Sorcerer are presented in a way which makes more sense.

This is my reading as well. There's nothing to indicate that the oaths are common, and read as written it implies otherwise.

You can stretch the text to make the other interpretation work. But if that's what they meant, why not write "all paladins take the same oaths at level 1 & 2. At 3rd, you differentiate yourself with a new oath".

Because as it's being described, the subclass represents only the 3rd level oath, not the other oaths. The level 1 & 2 oaths are unrelated to the subclass. They are part of the class in general.

I'd guess they didn't make it clear because they also don't care for that concept. They want to have differentiated oaths at 1 & 2 (because it makes sense) without differentiated powers (because it goes against their design goals), so end up with a wishy washy compromise.

[Kane0]

I guess any 2024 character will be 'in training' at levels 1 and 2 by default. That period where they are more than their background, but not fully class-ified yet.

Like being on the council, but not granted the rank of master.

Which is fine by me, just come out and say so. The 2014 tiers and their relative renown/problems expected to be tackled are on the same page already, but some people are still expecting level 1s to be full-on heroes of some sort because it hasnt been outright expressed that you're not a 'full PC' until level 3+. And now that i say that I can see why it hasnt i guess.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

This is my reading as well. There's nothing to indicate that the oaths are common, and read as written it implies otherwise.

You can stretch the text to make the other interpretation work. But if that's what they meant, why not write "all paladins take the same oaths at level 1 & 2. At 3rd, you differentiate yourself with a new oath".

Nothing to stretch, the base oath is the same across the board and then you take a unique one later.

To keep using the Stormlight Example. There are 10 orders of Knights, each with very different purposes and powers. But the first oath they take is all the same across the board. It's a broader Oath. Before a Radiant swears to protect people, or seek truth, or bring people together, or seek justice or anything else. They swear to value Standing up vs cowering away in the face of adversity, they vow to protect life as a focus vs seeking death and they vow that the Ends do not ever justify the means. Strength before Weakness, Life before Death, Journey before Destination.

Every single order is unique from each other, but they all start with the same three promises.

Why is that concept so hard for 5e paladins?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

If characters at level 2 are 'in training', I uhhhh have some questions about what that means for the average stats of the wider world.

[Kane0]

If characters at level 2 are 'in training', I uhhhh have some questions about what that means for the average stats of the wider world.

You mean like the NPCs in the back of the PHB and MM?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

If characters at level 2 are 'in training', I uhhhh have some questions about what that means for the average stats of the wider world.

Easiest real life comparison is becoming a Surgeon. A Surgical Intern is a Real Doctor, they already know more about medicine than the standard person and are skilled in treating injuries and caring for people. But it'll be years before they pick a specific specialty and become Cardio Vascular Surgeons, or Osteopathic Surgeons, or Plastics, or whatever.

A Level 1 or 2 Paladin is more highly trained than the average person when it comes to war and combat, as well as having training and focus to unlock the basic paths of Divine Power. Then when they hit level 3 they unlock their specific path and find greater power.

A level 1 Wizard isn't untrained because they don't have their specialty yet. Neither is a Level 1 or 2 Fighter, or a Barbarian... So why do we keep insisting that there's something weird about a Paladin?

[GooeyChewie]

As for the whole paladin discussion, this really only seems like a problem if the player genuinely hasn't picked a subclass when they start, and I think that's pretty rare. And even if that IS the case, most of the subclasses overlap enough that you could have some fairly generic initial knightly oaths (with Conquest and maybe Vengence being the exceptions).
It's probably true that most players don't start a class without knowing what subclass they plan to take. But the stated goal of moving all subclasses to level 3 was so that players could create a level 1 character while genuinely not picking a subclass when they start. Pointing out that you can make the problem go away by choosing your subclass at level 1 is counterproductive to the stated goal of not needing to choose your subclass until level 3.


Thankfully that's not the issue.

You swear a general oath and live up to it, then you take on new oaths or aspects of the oath.
The UA states that the subclasses represent bodies of oaths that begin when the Paladin enter the class. Thus, the oaths that a Paladin takes at levels 1 and 2 are related to their subclass, not generic oaths. The Knight Radiants might work differently, but they aren't relevant to how Paladins work in D&D.


Well yeah, that's what a "culmination" means, your character is building on a foundation. That foundation does not have to be unique to each specialization. A wizard's subclass represents a focus on a given school or technique that builds on the training they began when they entered the class. A druid isn't eligible to join/be bestowed with a circle until they've picked up the basics of druidic magic. A paladin may or may not have a specific specialization in mind when they enter the class, but until they've covered the basic tenets that aspiration doesn't matter, and it can even change if the paladin's outlook does prior to 3rd level.
I agree that a "culmination" means that your character is building on a foundation. The UA states that each of the Paladin subclasses represents the body of oaths the Paladin took starting when they began in the class, which includes the ones at levels 1 and 2. In other words, the UA disagrees with you on the point of the foundation not being unique to each specialization. A Paladin's subclass actually starts at level for the character; it just doesn't start for the player until level 3.




*points at sig*

If you view that common foundation as unique to each subclass and picking a different one as a retcon then of course you're going to break the fiction. But you can just as easily not do that.

*points at UA*

It's not an assumption that each Paladin subclass represents the entire body of oaths. The UA explicitly states so.

*points at your sig*

Also, framing it as picking a different subclass assumes the player has picked a subclass to begin with. The stated goal of putting subclasses at level 3 instead of level 1 was so that new players did not need to pick a subclass at level 1. Such a player, who advances the character level by level without reading ahead, will need to retcon that their Paladin had made pre-final oaths at all.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The UA states that the subclasses represent bodies of oaths that begin when the Paladin enter the class. Thus, the oaths that a Paladin takes at levels 1 and 2 are related to their subclass, not generic oaths. The Knight Radiants might work differently, but they aren't relevant to how Paladins work in D&D.

You're deciding it doesn't work then forcing the interpretation to support your stance. I just gave you an example of an evolving Oath. ALL Paladins take certain oaths, then you swear a specific one as you find your calling. You're the one emphasizing that these must apparently all be completely alien from each other.

The Knights Radiant don't work differently. They take oaths, they get power from their oaths and adherence to them and become great warriors. I'm sorry, how is that not a Paladin on the surface? And again, no one said all paladins are immediately like Radiants, but you keep insisting the lore doesn't work when we have examples of it working.

But look at the actual oaths. With the exception of Conquest and Oathbreaker, which I don't think needs to exist in the first place as actual Paladins (IE I agree it's a gap) Every last oath can be interpreted in similar lines regardless of the specifics. Protect, Be an Example, Inspire. It's all relatively similar with different specifics.

[Atranen]

Nothing to stretch, the base oath is the same across the board and then you take a unique one later.

To keep using the Stormlight Example. There are 10 orders of Knights, each with very different purposes and powers. But the first oath they take is all the same across the board. It's a broader Oath. Before a Radiant swears to protect people, or seek truth, or bring people together, or seek justice or anything else. They swear to value Standing up vs cowering away in the face of adversity, they vow to protect life as a focus vs seeking death and they vow that the Ends do not ever justify the means. Strength before Weakness, Life before Death, Journey before Destination.

Every single order is unique from each other, but they all start with the same three promises.

Why is that concept so hard for 5e paladins?

Because not all 5e paladins "start with the same three promises", or anything close to it. Take the Xanathar's subclasses: Conquest and Redemption. The only things they have in common as goals are so generic as to be meaningless.

To take the examples offered above:


Something like: "I swear on [god/power/philosophy] that I shall Sense the Hidden, Divine the Fiend, the Psyker, the Mutant." - boom, Divine Sense.

"I swear I shall heal the wounded, be it me, or maybe others, in the name of this Oath." Boom, Lay on Hands.

"I swear to uphold the spellcasting provided by [god/power/philosophy] and to use such might to strike down our foes." - boom, Spellcasting and Divine Smite.

These are kind of oaths, but really more just justifications for the abilities Paladins have already. A conquest paladin (who is likely to consort with fiends) and a redemption paladin mean very different things when they vow to 'Divine the Fiend'. A conquest paladin is not vowing to 'cure the wounded' in general; they are causing those wounds more often than not. "Upholding spellcasting and using might to strike down foes" could apply to the majority of PHB classes.

It is much more narratively reasonable for a 1st level conquest paladin to vow to "seek glory in battle and subjugate our enemies", and a 1st level redemption paladin to vow to "use violence only as a last resort"...

...than it is for both to vow to "use might to strike down our foes", and then realize at 3rd level that one means seeking glory through subjugation and the other means only as a last resort. Their philosophies are so starkly different that their oaths ought to differ from the beginning.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You mean like the NPCs in the back of the PHB and MM?

Yes, if the expectation is going to be that an adventurer isn't fully-formed, ready for the wider world until level 3.

[OvisCaedo]

Hmm. Mechanically, I don't think there's necessarily much wrong with taking a few levels to get "subclass" type abilities. An Oath of Conquest paladin can still be an Oath of Conquest paladin, with all of the devotion to those goals and ideals, before they've actually unlocked whatever specific power they achieve at level 3. I don't think it necessarily NEEDS to be standardized to shove all subclasses to third, either, but it's not unequivocally unworkable.

But one of the supposed driving reasons for this change is to avoid scaring players with too many choices at level 1. And I think many classes/subclasses can easily result in extremely thematically incoherent characters if the player DOESN'T already have their subclass picked out at level 1 anyhow, even if it's not 'official' until level 3.

[GooeyChewie]

You're deciding it doesn't work then forcing the interpretation to support your stance.

I was literally quoting the UA. I am interpreting "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class." to mean that each of the Paladin's subclasses represents all of the oaths that the Paladin takes beginning at Paladin level 1. I'm not sure how that's forcing an interpretation.

The thing I'm insisting doesn't work is the idea that telling players at level 3 that their characters have been taking oaths over the past two levels which are part of whatever subclass they are about to choose is somehow less confusing than telling them that they select an oath at level 1.

[Dr.Samurai]

There's a protagonist in one of the FR trilogies that is a warlock who eventually gets two pacts (something possible in 4E). Pretty awesome.

[Theodoxus]

What's the difference between a 2nd level Paladin that will go into Devotion, versus a 2nd level Paladin that will go into Vengeance, versus a 2nd level Paladin that will MC into Divine Soul and never take another level in Paladin?

Like, mechanically. What's the difference? And then, roleplay wise, what's the difference?

I really don't understand the problem of Paladins gaining their subclass at 3rd level.

Do your pre-Devotion Paladins really play that much differently than pre-Vengeance Paladins? Outside of possibly alignment?

And even if you do, what exactly are the ramifications of playing a pre-Vengeance Paladin and then suddenly deciding to go Devotion at 3rd level? There's literally no mechanical difference. Hence my confusion. Anyone care to enlighten this old man?

[Kane0]

Yes, if the expectation is going to be that an adventurer isn't fully-formed, ready for the wider world until level 3.

Well during tier one you become 'local heroes', so if you're comparing against book statblocks any level 1 PC will be superior to a commoner and have a minor edge over CR 1/8 bandits, cultists and guards as well as CR 1/4 acolytes. When you get to CR 1/2 scouts and thugs it's a whole other story, their multiattack is dangerous compared to any Tier 1 PC but otherwise the rest of their stats are a match for or inferior to a level 2 PC (Thug HP is pretty high though). The CR 1 spy is kinda unfair compared to a level 1 or 2 rogue, and it only gets worse from there with the berserker, druid, priest, knight, veteran and so on.

[Atranen]

What's the difference between a 2nd level Paladin that will go into Devotion, versus a 2nd level Paladin that will go into Vengeance, versus a 2nd level Paladin that will MC into Divine Soul and never take another level in Paladin?

Like, mechanically. What's the difference? And then, roleplay wise, what's the difference?

I really don't understand the problem of Paladins gaining their subclass at 3rd level.

Do your pre-Devotion Paladins really play that much differently than pre-Vengeance Paladins? Outside of possibly alignment?

And even if you do, what exactly are the ramifications of playing a pre-Vengeance Paladin and then suddenly deciding to go Devotion at 3rd level? There's literally no mechanical difference. Hence my confusion. Anyone care to enlighten this old man?

That's the core of my complaint; mechanically, there is no difference. Roleplay wise, there ought to be. Hence, it would be good to reflect this mechanically.

A paladin of vengeance is taking "a solemn commitment to punish those who have committed a grievous sin." This implies that someone specific (or a specific group) has transgressed against the individual. As part of their drive for vengeance, they explicitly endorse "by any means necessary", i.e. that the ends justify the means.

A paladin of devotion is "binding themselves to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order." Typically that excludes revenge and excludes "by any means necessary". They likely have not been harmed in the same way a paladin of vengeance has, or at the least had a very different response to that experience.

The path that an individual takes to these subclasses will generally be different. The actions that the two paladins take will often differ.

But none of this appears mechanically.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I was literally quoting the UA. I am interpreting "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class." to mean that each of the Paladin's subclasses represents all of the oaths that the Paladin takes beginning at Paladin level 1. I'm not sure how that's forcing an interpretation.

Exactly, you're interpreting the words a certain way that conflicts with how you view it when others are clearly able to read it another way. You've decided it's bad and now you want to argue evidence in that direction.

The rest of us are reading "Each of this class' subclasses represent a body of oaths that the Paladin begins taking upon joining the class" to mean they take more generalized oaths that support the overall path to power with 3rd level being when their calling becomes more specifically focused.

[Atranen]

Exactly, you're interpreting the words a certain way that conflicts with how you view it when others are clearly able to read it another way. You've decided it's bad and now you want to argue evidence in that direction.

The rest of us are reading "Each of this class' subclasses represent a body of oaths that the Paladin begins taking upon joining the class" to mean they take more generalized oaths that support the overall path to power with 3rd level being when their calling becomes more specifically focused.

If they were taking the same oaths at 1 & 2 and a different one at 3, then the subclass does not represent "a body of oaths", it represents a single oath: the level 3 one. The class represents a body of oaths common to all paladins and the subclass represents a single one.

[Theodoxus]

But one of the supposed driving reasons for this change is to avoid scaring players with too many choices at level 1. And I think many classes/subclasses can easily result in extremely thematically incoherent characters if the player DOESN'T already have their subclass picked out at level 1 anyhow, even if it's not 'official' until level 3.

The only time I can see that happening is if the entire group of friends decides to buy the books and jump into the game without any assistance. I've introduced a number of people to the game, and one thing I've always emphasized was a thematic build.

With AD&D and 2nd Edition, it was mostly to avoid hazards of attribute requirements, level caps, and MC vs Dual class.

3rd Edition brought a massive amount of complexity, requiring actual 20 level builds to make sure if you're wanting to grab a Prestige Class, or you're MCing, to make sure your BAB was functional at every level.

4th Edition, the game was a little more lenient in regards to building, since there wasn't actual MCing, and you can easily swap out abilities at level up so trap options that don't end up working at the table are easy to fix on an individual basis.

5th Edition moved away from 4th Edition's leniency, but there are so many trap options and less effective builds that at least providing some guidance on minimally optimal builds is a kindness to new players. Lord knows, there are probably more hours of Youtube videos than any one person could watch in their lifetime on effective, ineffective, surprising, fun, boring, and even broken builds. There's kind of no excuse for brand new to the game players to fall into a trap of not knowing their basic build. On top of that, total noobs would have no clue about the mechanics vs roleplay divide.


That's the core of my complaint; mechanically, there is no difference. Roleplay wise, there ought to be. Hence, it would be good to reflect this mechanically.

A paladin of vengeance is taking "a solemn commitment to punish those who have committed a grievous sin." This implies that someone specific (or a specific group) has transgressed against the individual. As part of their drive for vengeance, they explicitly endorse "by any means necessary", i.e. that the ends justify the means.

A paladin of devotion is "binding themselves to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order." Typically that excludes revenge and excludes "by any means necessary". They likely have not been harmed in the same way a paladin of vengeance has, or at the very least had a very different response to that experience.

The path that an individual takes to these subclasses will generally be different. The actions that the two paladins take will often differ.

But none of this appears mechanically.

This falls into the same issue I note above. The people who would fall into this dichotomy don't even know it exists. I don't know anyone who thinks "I saw the D&D movie, I want to play something like the Paladin guy, he was cool. Oh look, there's a Paladin right here. I think I'll just read about the 1st level abilities and worry about the rest later." The character should know exactly where they're headed, subclass wise. The player should know exactly where the character is headed, subclass wise. The character should be played by the player with that knowledge firmly in hand, no?

[Psyren]

I was literally quoting the UA. I am interpreting "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class." to mean that each of the Paladin's subclasses represents all of the oaths that the Paladin takes beginning at Paladin level 1. I'm not sure how that's forcing an interpretation.


If they were taking the same oaths at 1 & 2 and a different one at 3, then the subclass does not represent "a body of oaths", it represents a single oath: the level 3 one. The class represents a body of oaths common to all paladins and the subclass represents a single one.

So where does it say that none of the oaths in a given body of oaths are allowed to intersect with those in any other body? That's your reading, isn't it?

[Atranen]

This falls into the same issue I note above. The people who would fall into this dichotomy don't even know it exists. I don't know anyone who thinks "I saw the D&D movie, I want to play something like the Paladin guy, he was cool. Oh look, there's a Paladin right here. I think I'll just read about the 1st level abilities and worry about the rest later." The character should know exactly where they're headed, subclass wise. The player should know exactly where the character is headed, subclass wise. The character should be played by the player with that knowledge firmly in hand, no?

I agree! I think the theme (and therefore likely subclass) should be chosen from level 1. In which case, I think there ought to be some mechanic that reflects that.


So where does it say that none of the oaths in a given body of oaths are allowed to intersect with those in any other body? That's your reading, isn't it?

No. What I said was "not all paladin subclasses can plausibly take the exact same oaths at levels 1 & 2". That does not imply "No paladin subclasses can take any of the same oaths at levels 1 & 2".

For example: A paladin of devotion may take "Aid others and protect the weak" as an oath at level 1, unlocking some of their paladin abilities. A paladin of redemption can also plausibly take "aid others and protect the weak" at level 1, unlocking some of their paladin abilities.

A paladin of conquest cannot do so, as it is antithetical to their values. The weak are there to be subjugated that you may win glory.

[Psyren]

No. What I said was "not all paladin subclasses can plausibly take the exact same oaths at levels 1 & 2". That does not imply "No paladin subclasses can take any of the same oaths at levels 1 & 2".

For example: A paladin of devotion may take "Aid others and protect the weak" as an oath at level 1, unlocking some of their paladin abilities. A paladin of redemption can also plausibly take "aid others and protect the weak" at level 1, unlocking some of their paladin abilities.

A paladin of conquest cannot do so, as it is antithetical to their values. The weak are there to be subjugated that you may win glory.

Okay, so where does it say "aid others and protect the weak" is the only possible oath all paladins can take at level 1?

[Theodoxus]

Okay, so where does it say "aid others and protect the weak" is the only possible oath all paladins can take at level 1?

Not only that, what ability is that Oath unlocking?

Creating creeds as Oaths is outside the scope of both 5E and D&DOne Paladins.

Even Conquest Paladins keep Lay on Hands (I did note in my example Oath that they 'might' heal others, not that they have to.)

Also, I'm not a professional writer, my Oath examples shouldn't be taken as anything close to gospel. I'm sure someone could come up with more agnostic examples that fit any philosophy.

[Atranen]

Okay, so where does it say "aid others and protect the weak" is the only possible oath all paladins can take at level 1?

Nowhere. I never asserted that.


Not only that, what ability is that Oath unlocking?

Creating creeds as Oaths is outside the scope of both 5E and D&DOne Paladins.

Even Conquest Paladins keep Lay on Hands (I did note in my example Oath that they 'might' heal others, not that they have to.)

Also, I'm not a professional writer, my Oath examples shouldn't be taken as anything close to gospel. I'm sure someone could come up with more agnostic examples that fit any philosophy.

I don't think there has to be a 1:1 correspondence between oaths and abilities.

In terms of creeds, that is present in 5e, under the "tenents of X" entry. That's where I'm taking my examples from.

Sorry for coming after yours in particular -- it helps to have a precise example, so I took what was at hand.

[Psyren]

Nowhere. I never asserted that.

So given that level 1 Devotion Paladins, Redemption Paladins, Conquest Paladins, and Vengeance Paladins all get the exact same powers at level 1 - and have always done so for that matter - isn't it logical to conclude then that your assumption as to the oath they're all swearing at level 1 is incorrect?

In other words, throw out your notion of "aid others and protect the weak" and replace it with something that they actually have in common instead.

[Atranen]

So given that level 1 Devotion Paladins, Redemption Paladins, Conquest Paladins, and Vengeance Paladins all get the exact same powers at level 1 - and have always done so for that matter - isn't it logical to conclude then that your assumption as to the oath they're all swearing at level 1 is incorrect?

In other words, throw out your notion of "aid others and protect the weak" and replace it with something that they actually have in common instead.

Why must their oaths be identical to gain the same powers? Clerics all worship different deities--but a cleric of lathander can inflict wounds just like a cleric of bane.

If you have a specific suggestion of a plausible oaths all paladins can swear, please offer it. I haven't heard anything that deals with the too generic issue.

[Psyren]

Why must their oaths be identical to gain the same powers? Clerics all worship different deities--but a cleric of lathander can inflict wounds just like a cleric of bane.

They don't, but you're the ones experiencing disconnect and stating that:


each Paladin subclass represents the entire body of oaths

Some of the oaths being common across "bodies" resolves that conundrum easily.

As for Clerics, they too have powers in common regardless of deity worshiped. A deity of disease still lets you call down a pillar of fire, while a deity of fire still enables you to spread pestilence, for example. Again, nothing new to D&D.



If you have a specific suggestion of a plausible oaths all paladins can swear, please offer it. I haven't heard anything that deals with the too generic issue.

"Too generic" is a personal issue for you to come to grips with, not for WotC or myself to solve.

[Atranen]

They don't, but you're the ones experiencing disconnect and stating that:

Some of the oaths being common across "bodies" resolves that conundrum easily.

The issue is that paladins of different subclasses ought to differ narratively from level 1 but do not differ mechanically until level 3. How do you see some oaths being common addressing that?

[Psyren]

The issue is that paladins of different subclasses ought to differ narratively from level 1 but do not differ mechanically until level 3. How do you see some oaths being common addressing that?

"Ought to differ (narratively, mechanically, whateverly) at level 1" according to who? They never did, so where is that expectation coming from?

[Atranen]

"Ought to differ (narratively, mechanically, whateverly) at level 1" according to who? They never did, so where is that expectation coming from?

Me. (And several others).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You also don't have to have the same Oath interpreted the same way. Keeping with the one I've been using, because it's a solid example, not because it's a universal answer.

Strength before Weakness
Life before Death
Journey before Destination

How could we take that SAME oath and apply it to different Oaths in 5e?

Conquest: Weakness breeds contempt and will cost me my throne, My life must be maintained at all costs, I must inspire fear with each step to ensure I am never challenged.

Devotion: Must stand strong before those who would hurt others, Must reach out to save lives, not take them, My behavior must be noble and set an example.

Glory: I must be a Bastion of Power and Athletics, I must strive to live a Life that shows greatness, I will be known by the legends I forge, not the grave I leave.

Redemption: The conviction of Peaceful people must not be broken, I must preserve and support those in need, No one may walk so long in the shadow that they cannot walk in the light. The path is ever forward.

Ancients: As the Tree's roots spread everywhere, so must my might, The light of Joy and beauty belongs with those who's eyes open to see it, I must be a beacon to all who despair.

You get the hint. I could run through every oath and make those exact words fit each and every one without having any of them swear something counter to their goal.

[Atranen]

You also don't have to have the same Oath interpreted the same way. Keeping with the one I've been using, because it's a solid example, not because it's a universal answer.

Strength before Weakness
Life before Death
Journey before Destination

How could we take that SAME oath and apply it to different Oaths in 5e?

Conquest: Weakness breeds contempt and will cost me my throne, My life must be maintained at all costs, I must inspire fear with each step to ensure I am never challenged.

Devotion: Must stand strong before those who would hurt others, Must reach out to save lives, not take them, My behavior must be noble and set an example.

Glory: I must be a Bastion of Power and Athletics, I must strive to live a Life that shows greatness, I will be known by the legends I forge, not the grave I leave.

Redemption: The conviction of Peaceful people must not be broken, I must preserve and support those in need, No one may walk so long in the shadow that they cannot walk in the light. The path is ever forward.

Ancients: As the Tree's roots spread everywhere, so must my might, The light of Joy and beauty belongs with those who's eyes open to see it, I must be a beacon to all who despair.

You get the hint. I could run through every oath and make those exact words fit each and every one without having any of them swear something counter to their goal.

What is the point of using same words interpreted differently (i.e., different oaths)? How does it resolve the problem of the mechanics not reflecting narrative differences between the subclasses that ought to be present from 1st level?

[Psyren]

What is the point of using same words interpreted differently (i.e., different oaths)?

That's how faith works, even in fiction.


Me. (And several others).

I recommend you (and several others) amend that expectation then, because it isn't reasonable.

[Atranen]

I recommend you (and several others) amend that expectation then, because it isn't reasonable.

Why is it unreasonable for paladins to differ mechanically at first level? As I said earlier, I think that granting warlocks a 'baby pact' at level 1 is good, because it emphasizes diversity from the beginning. Why can't paladins get a 'baby oath' boon?

[Psyren]

Why is it unreasonable for paladins to differ mechanically at first level?

They've never done so in any edition, save the ones where you couldn't be a paladin at 1st level at all. So again, I have no idea where you (and several others) got that expectation from to begin with. It seems to have been pulled entirely from... the ether.


As I said earlier, I think that granting warlocks a 'baby pact' at level 1 is good, because it emphasizes diversity from the beginning. Why can't paladins get a 'baby oath' boon?

Because their powers don't come from a diverse collection of objects or extraplanar beings.

The way you differ starting paladins is through your build choices - using different weapons, preparing different spells, emphasizing different stats and skills etc.

[Atranen]

They've never done so in any edition, save the ones where you couldn't be a paladin at 1st level at all. So again, I have no idea where you (and several others) got that expectation from to begin with. It seems to have been pulled entirely from... the ether.

You know, it's possible to believe things are good game design even if they haven't appeared in D&D before :smallsmile:

One of my influences here is the 5e Cleric, which does an excellent job of highlighting different narrative sources via mechanics from a very low level.


Because their powers don't come from a diverse collection of objects or extraplanar beings.

Yes, they come from a diverse collection of oaths. Why is that difference significant here?

[Kane0]

Speaking of which, put the 2024 Cleric Holy Order at level 1 instead of 2 to save us the same argument.

[Rukelnikov]

One of my influences here is the 5e Cleric, which does an excellent job of highlighting different narrative sources via mechanics from a very low level.

Not well enough IMO, Why does Bhaal grant Cure Wounds? Because when trying to assasinate someone his followers could get hurt? Doesn't seem very thematic. Why does Lurue grant her clerics Inflict Wounds? So they have something to heal?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

What is the point of using same words interpreted differently (i.e., different oaths)? How does it resolve the problem of the mechanics not reflecting narrative differences between the subclasses that ought to be present from 1st level?

Again, no problem with the mechanics and the various narratives. Beyond that, the oath reinterpreted works perfectly in line with how faith works across real and fictional universes. So yeah, not seeing the issue.

Besides, my "point" is simple. You and others are insisting there is some sort of disconnect or problem with not having a different oath and level 1 power for every single Paladin Oath. I'm pointing out quite clearly how you could have a singular set of words and oath that applies to multiple interpretations. You asked what single oath would fit, I gave an example.


Why is it unreasonable for paladins to differ mechanically at first level? As I said earlier, I think that granting warlocks a 'baby pact' at level 1 is good, because it emphasizes diversity from the beginning. Why can't paladins get a 'baby oath' boon?

Because they are specifically moving away from that because from a mechanical standpoint they don't want people getting Subclass boosts for a single level dip. We've flat out been told the design philosophy will be that Sublcasses come on line at level 3, so now we work to contextualize what each class means with that ruling.


One of my influences here is the 5e Cleric, which does an excellent job of highlighting different narrative sources via mechanics from a very low level.

And the new Cleric doesn't take a specific Domain until level 3 and that works out fine. All Clerics of Corellon are devout to the Elven God, but it takes time in their service before a cleric understands exactly how to serve Corellon, rather to embody their Warrior Nature, their Magical Nature, etc, etc. And there's no hindrance in clerics being different because they don't pick those Domains at level 1 now.

[Psyren]

You know, it's possible to believe things are good game design even if they haven't appeared in D&D before :smallsmile:

One of my influences here is the 5e Cleric, which does an excellent job of highlighting different narrative sources via mechanics from a very low level.

It's also possible to believe that things that worked well before might be worthy of continued emulation. One of my influences here is the 5e Paladin, which does an excellent job of highlighting that commonality of powers prior to attaining subclass is both narratively and mechanically justifiable.


Yes, they come from a diverse collection of oaths. Why is that difference significant here?

The final oath is indeed quite diverse. You are inventing that all the others must be too, when you can just not do that.


Speaking of which, put the 2024 Cleric Holy Order at level 1 instead of 2 to save us the same argument.

That would just bring back level 1 cleric dips for heavy armor proficiency, one the very things (perhaps the main thing?) they're trying to kill.


Not well enough IMO, Why does Bhaal grant Cure Wounds? Because when trying to assasinate someone his followers could get hurt? Doesn't seem very thematic. Why does Lurue grant her clerics Inflict Wounds? So they have something to heal?

Right.

[Atranen]

Not well enough IMO, Why does Bhaal grant Cure Wounds? Because when trying to assasinate someone his followers could get hurt? Doesn't seem very thematic. Why does Lurue grant her clerics Inflict Wounds? So they have something to heal?

I'd be entirely on board with a shift to prevent spells that don't fit the narrative.


Besides, my "point" is simple. You and others are insisting there is some sort of disconnect or problem with not having a different oath and level 1 power for every single Paladin Oath. I'm pointing out quite clearly how you could have a singular set of words and oath that applies to multiple interpretations. You asked what single oath would fit, I gave an example.

A single set of words interpreted to mean entirely contradictory things to different paladins does not solve the issue, because the question is about a single oath all paladins could take. If they mean contradictory things by using the same words, they are taking different oaths. Some are taking an oath to protect all life, others to protect their own life. These are not the same.



Because they are specifically moving away from that because from a mechanical standpoint they don't want people getting Subclass boosts for a single level dip. We've flat out been told the design philosophy will be that Sublcasses come on line at level 3, so now we work to contextualize what each class means with that ruling.

:smallconfused: But warlocks are getting a baby pact; it's entirely consistent with their design philosophy for paladins to get a baby oath.



And the new Cleric doesn't take a specific Domain until level 3 and that works out fine. All Clerics of Corellon are devout to the Elven God, but it takes time in their service before a cleric understands exactly how to serve Corellon, rather to embody their Warrior Nature, their Magical Nature, etc, etc. And there's no hindrance in clerics being different because they don't pick those Domains at level 1 now.

There absolutely is; this was one of their worst decisions thus far.


It's also possible to believe that things that worked well before might be worthy of continued emulation. One of my influences here is the 5e Paladin, which does an excellent job of highlighting that commonality of powers prior to attaining subclass is both narratively and mechanically justifiable.

Oh good, I guess we don't need a new ruleset.


The final oath is indeed quite diverse. You are inventing that all the others must be too, when you can just not do that.

I'm not inventing it--it is a natural consequence of the differences in Paladin subclasses. There is no single oath that all of them can follow.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

They've never done so in any edition, save the ones where you couldn't be a paladin at 1st level at all. So again, I have no idea where you (and several others) got that expectation from to begin with. It seems to have been pulled entirely from... the ether.

Huh?

AD&D's paladins differed significantly at creation and at first level, from chevaliers having extraordinary wealth and superior starting gear; to gravehunters having superior turn undead at the cost of spells, disease immunity and lay on hands; to the medician giving up all but one weapon proficiency at 1st level in exchange for a whole bunch of garbage ribbons; to the divinate gaining an extra sphere of spells in exchange for -20% WBL. In 3rd edition, LE/CE paladins of tyranny and slaughter had alignment-flipped aura, detection and smite features at level 1. The paladin of freedom (CG) and of slaughter, the planar paladin, the warforged paladin, the crescent moon knight, the holy judge, the lion legionnaire, the mystic fire knight and the harmonious knight had different class skills. There were also racial substitution features -- dragonborn could trade detecting evil for detecting dragonblood, which was terrible; half-orcs could get a scaling buff in exchange for smite evil; elves could uniquely smite with ranged attacks instead of melee; warforged added smite construct for free; harmonious knight granted inspire courage; Cityscape had skill substitutions as well. There were lots of level 1 mechanical variations, based on race, alignment, base stats, RP requirements, specific skill/proficiency requirements... a great many things. Am I not understanding your meaning?



Oh good, I guess we don't need a new ruleset.

This but not in blue, as far as I can tell.

[Kane0]

That would just bring back level 1 cleric dips for heavy armor proficiency, one the very things (perhaps the main thing?) they're trying to kill.


I couldn't give a more unenthused meh if I tried. It really isn't a big deal.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

A single set of words interpreted to mean entirely contradictory things to different paladins does not solve the issue, because the question is about a single oath all paladins could take. If they mean contradictory things by using the same words, they are taking different oaths. Some are taking an oath to protect all life, others to protect their own life. These are not the same.

These are a single oath taken by all. The source I'm pulling this from is the same, That single Oath is taken by 10 different paladin orders with very different outlooks and goals. It is literally an example of a single oath fitting multiple paths and goals.


:smallconfused: But warlocks are getting a baby pact; it's entirely consistent with their design philosophy for paladins to get a baby oath.

No, Warlocks are getting an existing class feature switched from Level 3 to level 1. Paladins do not have a variable selection ability . Also, we don't know that it'll be going to level 1. Given the Cleric design I'm betting the Pact Boon comes at level 2 now.


There absolutely is; this was one of their worst decisions thus far.

By all means, explain. How does my not picking a Domain until level 3 affect my Cleric's relationship with their god?

[Psyren]

Oh good, I guess we don't need a new ruleset.

Insofar as we don't need anything D&D-related, sure.


I'm not inventing it--it is a natural consequence of the differences in Paladin subclasses. There is no single oath that all of them can follow.

This is a failure of imagination on your part.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm not inventing it--it is a natural consequence of the differences in Paladin subclasses. There is no single oath that all of them can follow.

Again using the example. We have a group of Protectors dedicated to Keeping people safe, a group of Lawful neutral Justice must be upheld at all costs, a group dedicated to ensuring no one is forgotten or ignored, a group dedicated to Honesty and Truth in all things, a group aimed at Personal excellence and development, a group dedicated to personal freedom, a group dedicated to being the lynchpin society and depend on, a group dedicated to bringing people together and developing bonds. And then two more groups that are so individualistic that you can't assign behaviors or outlooks to them. ALL using the same first oath without issue.

Again, yes, these are not specifically D&D Paladins. No one said they were. But it is 100% a functioning example of multiple different ethical outlooks using the same oaths to start their path. And if I can give this example then it means there'll be others out there too and thus it's not an unreasonable idea.

[MisterD]

Level one = Contact or character did somthing to draw Patron's attention

1) Get to cast spells based on how they will work Warlock spell casting. My questions is. Why get to choose INT or CHA - Do they want characters to better multiclass with Wizards? Divine Sorcerers can cast cleric spells without having the option to boost WIS.)

2) some sort of taste of boon
2A) Chain to work through a familiar
2B) Tome to work through spell casting and rituals
2C) Blade (or Steel or something to reflect not just using a blade) to use/Imbue weapon with abilities (sort of like Arcane Archer)

Just got a thought. For Blade warlock. As an action can imbue weapon with a spell that has a to hit roll with no DC based rider and for one action to do both weapon and spell damage with the attack.

[Kane0]

1 )Get to cast spells based on how they will work Warlock spell casting. My questions is. Why get to choose INT or CHA - Do they want characters to better multiclass with Wizards? Divine Sorcerers can cast cleric spells without having the option to boost WIS.)

As mentioned, Warlocks were INT based in 2014 playtests and is still oft-requested to be returned as an alternative or feature. Balance-wise, nothing breaks by enabling War/Wiz or War/Art multiclasses compared to War/Pal, War/Sorc or War/Bard. No comment in regards to WIS.

[arnin77]

As mentioned, Warlocks were INT based in 2014 playtests and is still oft-requested to be returned as an alternative or feature. Balance-wise, nothing breaks by enabling War/Wiz or War/Art multiclasses compared to War/Pal, War/Sorc or War/Bard. No comment in regards to WIS.

I’ve been wondering why Warlocks aren’t wisdom based. I feel like they are like a cleric/wizard in a way and if wizards are the Int mage, sorcerers are the charisma mage, then warlocks could be the wisdom mage? Just a thought.

[Kane0]

I’ve been wondering why Warlocks aren’t wisdom based. I feel like they are like a cleric/wizard in a way and if wizards are the Int mage, sorcerers are the charisma mage, then warlocks could be the wisdom mage? Just a thought.

There's no reason they can't be, i've often used Warlocks as stand-ins for priestly types when DMing. Instead of serving a deity they just serve some other power that may or may not be immortal.

[GooeyChewie]

There's a lot that's been said since I last checked in, so rather than quoting a bunch of posts I'm going to sum up.

1. The UA says that "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class." That's a direct quote, not an interpretation. If you would prefer that a Paladin's pre-final oaths be general ones which relate to the overall class rather than being represented by the subclass, your issue is with the UA, not me.

2. Nobody is arguing that all Paladin oaths have to be completely different from all other Paladin oaths. What we are arguing is that they don't have to be the same, or even all that similar.

3. The expectation that Paladins of different subclasses should differ narratively from level 1 was created by WotC, by virtue of the earlier quote where they say that Paladins begin taking the oaths that are represented by their subclasses when they join the class. Narratively speaking, the character is an Oath of X Paladin at level 1, even though the player doesn't make the choice until level 3.

4. The "disconnect" or "problem" actually has nothing to do with whether or not Paladins have general or specific oaths prior to their final oath. The problem is that the existence of these pre-final oaths that should be taken at level 1 or 2 are pointed out in the subclass section, which the player is not directed to until level 3. So either the player looks forward and chooses their subclass at character creation (which goes against WotC's stated goal of not making players do just that), or the player ends up retroactively filling in the pre-final oaths when they choose the final oath. Neither option is game-breaking, but neither one is good.

5. Adding a mechanical choice at level 1 that acts as a pre-final oath tenet would probably help a lot. Yes, it would be a new feature for Paladins, but with 1D&D it is possible they get a new feature. I'll be interested to see the details of how Warlocks and Sorcerers work, along with the reaction of the player base to each of them, to see how they might influence how WotC proceeds with Paladins.

6. Just for the record, I like the vast majority of the playtest Paladin. It's really just the wonky timing of when you take which oaths and when you get features for doing so that feels weird.

[Psyren]

There's a lot that's been said since I last checked in, so rather than quoting a bunch of posts I'm going to sum up.

1. The UA says that "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class." That's a direct quote, not an interpretation. If you would prefer that a Paladin's pre-final oaths be general ones which relate to the overall class rather than being represented by the subclass, your issue is with the UA, not me.

2. Nobody is arguing that all Paladin oaths have to be completely different from all other Paladin oaths. What we are arguing is that they don't have to be the same, or even all that similar.

3. The expectation that Paladins of different subclasses should differ narratively from level 1 was created by WotC, by virtue of the earlier quote where they say that Paladins begin taking the oaths that are represented by their subclasses when they join the class. Narratively speaking, the character is an Oath of X Paladin at level 1, even though the player doesn't make the choice until level 3.

4. The "disconnect" or "problem" actually has nothing to do with whether or not Paladins have general or specific oaths prior to their final oath. The problem is that the existence of these pre-final oaths that should be taken at level 1 or 2 are pointed out in the subclass section, which the player is not directed to until level 3. So either the player looks forward and chooses their subclass at character creation (which goes against WotC's stated goal of not making players do just that), or the player ends up retroactively filling in the pre-final oaths when they choose the final oath. Neither option is game-breaking, but neither one is good.

5. Adding a mechanical choice at level 1 that acts as a pre-final oath tenet would probably help a lot. Yes, it would be a new feature for Paladins, but with 1D&D it is possible they get a new feature. I'll be interested to see the details of how Warlocks and Sorcerers work, along with the reaction of the player base to each of them, to see how they might influence how WotC proceeds with Paladins.

6. Just for the record, I like the vast majority of the playtest Paladin. It's really just the wonky timing of when you take which oaths and when you get features for doing so that feels weird.

Nobody in favor of the UA has a problem with "body of oaths -> subclass." Rather, we're pointing out that the subclass being represented by a body of oaths does not mean that the oaths prior to the culminating one at 3rd have to be incompatible, even if they are different. Which, as you mentioned, they don't have to be different either. Ergo, #4 is a straight up false dichotomy, "body of oaths" does not mean you have to narratively lock yourself in to one subclass/culminating oath at level 1. And no new features/tenets (#5) are needed.

[Rukelnikov]

There absolutely is; this was one of their worst decisions thus far.

I don't think getting the Domain at 3 is a problem, you can be a cleric of Corellon from level 1, and get the Domain at 3rd level, its not like your character started venerating a given god and immediately got powers, following said deity for long is the usual narrative, at a given point said deity started granting spells to the character.

If the idea is to differentiate clerics more, I agree, but IMO subclass at 1 isn't enough.


I'm not inventing it--it is a natural consequence of the differences in Paladin subclasses. There is no single oath that all of them can follow.

I swear I'll make it to level 3 or die trying!

[Kane0]

I swear I'll make it to level 3 or die trying!
A minimum two-level dip is also acceptable

[Atranen]

AD&D's paladins differed significantly at creation and at first level, from chevaliers having extraordinary wealth and superior starting gear; to gravehunters having superior turn undead at the cost of spells, disease immunity and lay on hands; to the medician giving up all but one weapon proficiency at 1st level in exchange for a whole bunch of garbage ribbons; to the divinate gaining an extra sphere of spells in exchange for -20% WBL.

---snip---



A plethora of excellent examples from which to draw for defining the current paladin. I haven't played much AD&D, but I've played the video games based around it, and I loved the kits.


These are a single oath taken by all. The source I'm pulling this from is the same, That single Oath is taken by 10 different paladin orders with very different outlooks and goals. It is literally an example of a single oath fitting multiple paths and goals.

I don't think using the same words with different meanings are the same oaths. Interpreting them to be the same when they clearly have different connotations goes against the spirit of what an oath is. This could be a good fit for warlocks :smallsmile:


How does my not picking a Domain until level 3 affect my Cleric's relationship with their god?

It weakens the mechanical connection to the narrative. Currently, a light cleric gets light cleric powers from the get go. In the proposed changes, they do not.


And if I can give this example then it means there'll be others out there too and thus it's not an unreasonable idea.

If you have a good example, give it. "They use the same words but mean different things" is not.


Nobody in favor of the UA has a problem with "body of oaths -> subclass." Rather, we're pointing out that the subclass being represented by a body of oaths does not mean that the oaths prior to the culminating one at 3rd have to be incompatible, even if they are different. Which, as you mentioned, they don't have to be different either. Ergo, #4 is a straight up false dichotomy, "body of oaths" does not mean you have to narratively lock yourself in to one subclass/culminating oath at level 1. And no new features/tenets (#5) are needed.

You may not be locked into one; it's plausible you could choose between redemption and devotion at level 3. But it's implausible that you could choose between redemption and conquest. So you will still end up either needing to choose upfront ("I want the good guy oaths that are compatible with redemption and devotion") or choose retroactively ("I chose redemption, so I must have picked good guy oaths"). In either case, you're encountering problems.


I don't think getting the Domain at 3 is a problem, you can be a cleric of Corellon from level 1, and get the Domain at 3rd level, its not like your character started venerating a given god and immediately got powers, following said deity for long is the usual narrative, at a given point said deity started granting spells to the character.

If the idea is to differentiate clerics more, I agree, but IMO subclass at 1 isn't enough.

Agree on both counts; if there is a way to differentiate clerics besides domain, I'd embrace it.


I swear I'll make it to level 3 or die trying!

This guy gets it!

[Theodoxus]

2. Nobody is arguing that all Paladin oaths have to be completely different from all other Paladin oaths. What we are arguing is that they don't have to be the same, or even all that similar.


It's all hand-waved anyway, unless you're REALLY into go all in on how you're playing your Paladin. (I bet you create some fun Latin-y sounding spells too, right?)

But at least now I know you're the one guy who doesn't actually read the whole class, just looks at level 1, writes it on your character sheet, creates some mumble-jumble Oath about how you're gonna be Lawful Stupid and go about your days. And then, some sessions later, you hit third level and now actually look over the various subclass options and hit yourself in the head because you absolutely LOVE the lore and take of Conquest, but you've been Lawful Stupid this whole time! Rushing into danger without thinking about your partymates, you just HAVE to save the orphans from the fire! But Conquest is all about Chaotic Stupid. GRR. I want my retcon, stat!

I really... I just don't understand. WotC's stated (somewhere) goal is to make it easier for new players to not be overloaded with analysis paralysis. That doesn't mean that new players are blocked from reading the entire text, or coming up with a level plan for their character, or seeking answers online on how best to emulate whatever shiny toy they're currently hooked into. And all the planning in the world flies out the window when reality hits. Maybe Devotion does actually work better for the campaign that the DM is running; but you don't know that until the 2nd or 3rd session in. If your ChaosMonkey of a Conquest Paladin is granted at 1st level, whoops! Now you're stuck being the jerk at the table - better hope D&DOne has some retraining rules, or the DM has some ad hoc ones for you... or I guess your character is going on a suicide mission, party of one.


I don't think getting the Domain at 3 is a problem, you can be a cleric of Corellon from level 1, and get the Domain at 3rd level, its not like your character started venerating a given god and immediately got powers, following said deity for long is the usual narrative, at a given point said deity started granting spells to the character.

While I agree completely with the sentiment, I can see a sticking point too... If you're playing up a specific God aspect, say Corellon or Moradin because you're the elfiest elf or dwarfiest dwarf, but then at 3rd level, want a Domain those Gods don't have access to... what then? Change Gods? Suck it up and don't play a Death Cleric of Corellon or an Arcane Cleric of Moradin? Beg the DM to let you be the sole Twilight Cleric of Pelor, creating a new denomination for the Sun God? "If I don't make 100 converts by 5th level, strike me dead, Lord!"

[Pixel_Kitsune]

A plethora of excellent examples from which to draw for defining the current paladin. I haven't played much AD&D, but I've played the video games based around it, and I loved the kits.

All of which were AD&D Kits which give some type of singular written advantage and then disadvantage and were not balanced for the overall table.


I don't think using the same words with different meanings are the same oaths. Interpreting them to be the same when they clearly have different connotations goes against the spirit of what an oath is. This could be a good fit for warlocks :smallsmile:

It's the same oath. Don't be weak in the face of what you're standing against, value life of your people over the death of your enemies, the way you go about things is more important than the end result.

Every single rewrite of what I said is the exact same Oath. And if you honestly don't understand how multiple people could swear the exact same oath and come up with different interpretations....


It weakens the mechanical connection to the narrative. Currently, a light cleric gets light cleric powers from the get go. In the proposed changes, they do not.

No, it doesn't. The Light Cleric has access to divine magic as given by Pelor (Or whoever). As they deepen their faith and server their god well they gain a deeper connection and powers unique abilities tied to a specific facet of the god they most connect with. It weakens nothing, it in fact adds more narrative to the mechanics.


If you have a good example, give it. "They use the same words but mean different things" is not.

{Scrubbed}

You may not be locked into one; it's plausible you could choose between redemption and devotion at level 3. But it's implausible that you could choose between redemption and conquest. So you will still end up either needing to choose upfront ("I want the good guy oaths that are compatible with redemption and devotion") or choose retroactively ("I chose redemption, so I must have picked good guy oaths"). In either case, you're encountering problems.

I've have characters who have made shifts like that, going from super pacifists to dealing death because something happened to them that made their view of what "Mercy" meant. They never once changed the actual definition of Mercy.


Agree on both counts; if there is a way to differentiate clerics besides domain, I'd embrace it.

You mean like by having all the boring aspects of their Domains become a separate choice?

[Rukelnikov]

While I agree completely with the sentiment, I can see a sticking point too... If you're playing up a specific God aspect, say Corellon or Moradin because you're the elfiest elf or dwarfiest dwarf, but then at 3rd level, want a Domain those Gods don't have access to... what then? Change Gods? Suck it up and don't play a Death Cleric of Corellon or an Arcane Cleric of Moradin? Beg the DM to let you be the sole Twilight Cleric of Pelor, creating a new denomination for the Sun God? "If I don't make 100 converts by 5th level, strike me dead, Lord!"

Tbh, I think cleric should choose their Deity at lvl 1, or ideal if they are not gonna be tied to any specific deity, that defeats the pourpose of minimizing choice at 1, but I don't think that's a good goal to pursue, so that's how I'll run it probably. I still like the normalized subs for design reasons, cross class subs can more readily be a thing, and stuff like that.

[GooeyChewie]

Nobody in favor of the UA has a problem with "body of oaths -> subclass." Rather, we're pointing out that the subclass being represented by a body of oaths does not mean that the oaths prior to the culminating one at 3rd have to be incompatible, even if they are different. Which, as you mentioned, they don't have to be different either. Ergo, #4 is a straight up false dichotomy, "body of oaths" does not mean you have to narratively lock yourself in to one subclass/culminating oath at level 1. And no new features/tenets (#5) are needed.
I'll refer you back to point #1. The UA specifically says that the oaths you take beginning when you join the class are represented by the subclass. It really doesn't matter whether those oaths are similar or different from any other Paladin's oaths. They are, for your character, from the point where they joined the class, according to the UA, Oath of {insert subclass here} oaths, whether you the player consciously made that choice before level 3 or not. If you don't like it, your problem is with the UA. And it's perfectly fine to have a problem with the UA, but don't pretend that it doesn't say the pre-final oaths are represented by your subclass.

As for #5, let me quote you. "Insofar as we don't need anything D&D-related, sure." But I do think it would make the class more coherent if Paladins did have something mechanical at level 1 that represents those pre-final oaths, rather than having the level 3 subclass section mention that your character has had oaths since they joined the class.


It's all hand-waved anyway, unless you're REALLY into go all in on how you're playing your Paladin. (I bet you create some fun Latin-y sounding spells too, right?)

But at least now I know you're the one guy who doesn't actually read the whole class, just looks at level 1, writes it on your character sheet, creates some mumble-jumble Oath about how you're gonna be Lawful Stupid and go about your days. And then, some sessions later, you hit third level and now actually look over the various subclass options and hit yourself in the head because you absolutely LOVE the lore and take of Conquest, but you've been Lawful Stupid this whole time! Rushing into danger without thinking about your partymates, you just HAVE to save the orphans from the fire! But Conquest is all about Chaotic Stupid. GRR. I want my retcon, stat!

I really... I just don't understand. WotC's stated (somewhere) goal is to make it easier for new players to not be overloaded with analysis paralysis. That doesn't mean that new players are blocked from reading the entire text, or coming up with a level plan for their character, or seeking answers online on how best to emulate whatever shiny toy they're currently hooked into. And all the planning in the world flies out the window when reality hits. Maybe Devotion does actually work better for the campaign that the DM is running; but you don't know that until the 2nd or 3rd session in. If your ChaosMonkey of a Conquest Paladin is granted at 1st level, whoops! Now you're stuck being the jerk at the table - better hope D&DOne has some retraining rules, or the DM has some ad hoc ones for you... or I guess your character is going on a suicide mission, party of one.

I believe you when you say you don't understand, because you have greatly mischaracterized both what I've been saying and me as a player.

I do like to have a strong identity for my characters. If I were playing a Paladin from level 1, I would decide on at least one oath they've sworn as part of their background for when they became a Paladin. I would already have a subclass in mind when determining that oath, in part because I like to plan out my characters and in part because that's what the subclass section of Paladin says I should do. I don't do funny Latin-sounding names for my spells (though I might for my character name, if I felt it was appropriate for the character). I absolutely hate both the "Lawful Stupid" trope and the "Chaotic Stupid" trope and would not play it at all (an opinion which dates back to my first game, in 3.5, in which the party had both a Lawful Stupid Paladin and a Chaotic Stupid Rogue). The fact that the oaths my character takes at level 1 are represented in the subclass I choose at level 3 is not a problem for me, because I will have already considered that fact when creating the character. Please don't act like just because I can see a potential pitfall for new players means that I'm an idiot who is going to make stupid characters.

As for new players reading the entire text, or coming up with a level plan for their character, or seeking answers online, you are absolutely right that nothing stops them from doing so. But when WotC released the "Cleric and Revised Species" UA, they posted a video in which Jeremy Crawford states that new players should not be expected to make that sort of decision until they've played a level or two of the vanilla class (time stamp 6:50 thru 7:15). The playtest Paladin is counterproductive to that idea, because a new player who does not do those things won't find out until level 3 that their subclass represents a body of oaths that their character has been taking since their joined the class. They aren't likely to need to retcon from Conquest oaths to Devotion oaths; they're likely to need to retcon that they made any oaths at all. If WotC players to not need to make the "momentous decision" (their words) of what subclass they want to play at level 1, then no subclass should tell the player at level 3 that it represents something which began when they joined the class.

[Hurrashane]

I don't get why everyone is so hung up over the paladin oaths thing. Like, this is the same hobby in which if a player suddenly decides they want to multiclass it's retroactively assumed the character was working towards that the entire time. So the same can be easily done with both Oaths and Domains.

Like, do people have a problem with a Fighter being just a basic fighty fighter man then suddenly having magic by way of eldritch knight? Like, based on the subclass you take at 3rd it's assumed your character was working towards that.

And if you need to like, retcon something to make it fit... So? You're level 3 that's like what 1-2 adventures? Some games let people change their entire character within that time.

[Psyren]

You may not be locked into one; it's plausible you could choose between redemption and devotion at level 3. But it's implausible that you could choose between redemption and conquest.

But you can. That you apparently can't find a way to square this that satisfies you is wholly irrelevant. That's not WotC's problem to solve.



{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Exactly this. Not to mention a limit on the understanding of where different sects, doctrines, schisms etc come from.


I'll refer you back to point #1. The UA specifically says that the oaths you take beginning when you join the class are represented by the subclass. It really doesn't matter whether those oaths are similar or different from any other Paladin's oaths. They are, for your character, from the point where they joined the class, according to the UA, Oath of {insert subclass here} oaths, whether you the player consciously made that choice before level 3 or not. If you don't like it, your problem is with the UA. And it's perfectly fine to have a problem with the UA, but don't pretend that it doesn't say the pre-final oaths are represented by your subclass.

I'm not disagreeing with point #1, so referring me back to it ad nauseam isn't moving the needle in any way. What I'm saying is that nowhere in the text does it say that the body of oaths are mutually exclusive prior to the culminating one at 3rd level. If you have a quote for that, by all means share it, I'll wait.


I don't get why everyone is so hung up over the paladin oaths thing. Like, this is the same hobby in which if a player suddenly decides they want to multiclass it's retroactively assumed the character was working towards that the entire time. So the same can be easily done with both Oaths and Domains.

Like, do people have a problem with a Fighter being just a basic fighty fighter man then suddenly having magic by way of eldritch knight? Like, based on the subclass you take at 3rd it's assumed your character was working towards that.

And if you need to like, retcon something to make it fit... So? You're level 3 that's like what 1-2 adventures? Some games let people change their entire character within that time.

This too. Where does it end? Every single class that gets their subclass at 3rd had to deal with this, where were all the complaints? How did Paladin, Fighter, Rogue etc. score so highly going into the playtest then?

[GooeyChewie]

I don't get why everyone is so hung up over the paladin oaths thing. Like, this is the same hobby in which if a player suddenly decides they want to multiclass it's retroactively assumed the character was working towards that the entire time. So the same can be easily done with both Oaths and Domains.

Like, do people have a problem with a Fighter being just a basic fighty fighter man then suddenly having magic by way of eldritch knight? Like, based on the subclass you take at 3rd it's assumed your character was working towards that.

And if you need to like, retcon something to make it fit... So? You're level 3 that's like what 1-2 adventures? Some games let people change their entire character within that time.

Part of it is that we're nerds on the internet, so we will argue extremely fine minutiae.

Part of it is because the Paladin's oath serves as both the subclass and the source of power for the overall class, so unlike most classes they need some additional explanation as to why they have powers at level 1 and 2 at all. (That said, I do admit that certain other subclasses, like Eldritch Knight, which require build decisions at level 1, are counterproductive to WotC's stance of players not needing to make the momentous subclass decision at level 1. But that's a slightly different topic.)

Part of it is because the other classes which have their subclass and overall source of power as the same thing (Warlock Patrons and Sorcerer Origins) get their subclasses at level 1 in 5e and don't yet have playtest versions to discuss. (After all, the original topic of the thread is Warlock changes, so the whole Paladin discussion roots back to a comparison to Warlock.)

And part of it is because Paladins have worked this way since 2014, so in a way we are releasing nearly 10 years of "Paladins don't make sense before getting their subclass" frustrations into one thread.

[paladinn]

Soo it seems this thread has gone off the rails.. lol

One thought about clerics and their domains/subclasses.. I wonder if it's time to bring back the "specialty priest" concept from 2e. Back in the day, priests/clerics didn't have access to Everything; they were limited by "spheres" (domains) to which they had greater or lesser access. 3e tossed this but kept domains and we ended up with CoDzillas.

I wonder how this would work in a 5.5e

[Hurrashane]

Part of it is that we're nerds on the internet, so we will argue extremely fine minutiae.

Part of it is because the Paladin's oath serves as both the subclass and the source of power for the overall class, so unlike most classes they need some additional explanation as to why they have powers at level 1 and 2 at all. (That said, I do admit that certain other subclasses, like Eldritch Knight, which require build decisions at level 1, are counterproductive to WotC's stance of players not needing to make the momentous subclass decision at level 1. But that's a slightly different topic.)

Part of it is because the other classes which have their subclass and overall source of power as the same thing (Warlock Patrons and Sorcerer Origins) get their subclasses at level 1 in 5e and don't yet have playtest versions to discuss. (After all, the original topic of the thread is Warlock changes, so the whole Paladin discussion roots back to a comparison to Warlock.)

And part of it is because Paladins have worked this way since 2014, so in a way we are releasing nearly 10 years of "Paladins don't make sense before getting their subclass" frustrations into one thread.

Ok, so why isn't their oath retroactively assumed at 3rd then? Like, if I play a paladin and go oath of Vengence it's assumed something happened in my backstory that put me on that path, not that something happened in levels 1 and 2 that turned me into a Vengence Paladin.

And it's not like you need to figure it out before then either. Hit level 3 decide to be a Vengence Paladin then work with your DM on what set you on the path, or just don't and just use the mechanics. Like, it's a game, square any circles you want or just shove them all in the square hole.


Like, if a player is familiar with the system they likely already know what subclass they'll be at character creation, so they can build into that RPwise and mechanically. Anyone who doesn't it's easy enough to swap some character stuff around or retcon things to fit. And if a DM is unwilling to do that then they may not be the best fit for new players.

[GooeyChewie]

I'm not disagreeing with point #1, so you can refer me back to it until your keyboard snaps in half for all I care. What I'm saying is that nowhere in the text does it say that the body of oaths are mutually exclusive prior to the culminating one at 3rd level. If you have a quote for that, by all means share it, I'll wait.

You keep coming back to this mutually exclusive idea, but it's entirely irrelevant. Point #4 was that the subclass section of Paladin tells you at level 3 that the oaths your character took since joining the class are represented by your subclass. Since that information is conveyed in a section that you are not directed to until level 3, you either look ahead and consider that information prior to reaching level 3, or your don't look ahead and retroactively apply that information once you reach level 3. That's true regardless of whether your pre-final oaths match up with any other Paladin or not. The only way it wouldn't be true is if you disagree with point #1.

Look, all I'm really saying is that information conveyed at level 3 in the playtest packet that tells you your Paladin has been taking oaths since level 1 really should be conveyed at level 1 instead of level 3.


Ok, so why isn't their oath retroactively assumed at 3rd then? Like, if I play a paladin and go oath of Vengence it's assumed something happened in my backstory that put me on that path, not that something happened in levels 1 and 2 that turned me into a Vengence Paladin.

It is. Or at least, it is if you didn't proactively apply it prior to level 3. That's my whole point, really, that putting subclasses at level 3 for Paladins, Warlocks and Sorcerers is what leads to either the subclass being retroactively assumed to have applied all along once you hit 3rd level (as is currently the case with the playtest Paladin) or some other feature explaining why they have powers before they have subclasses (as appears will be the case with Warlock). If the Warlock concept ends up scoring well, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if WotC goes back and does something similar for Paladins prior to the new PHB.

[Theodoxus]

So this whole disagreement is over the fact that the UA, which isn't the final form of the class, doesn't tell you the ramifications of a fluff line about oaths up front, but is buried in the 3rd level verbiage? Sounds more like you need to include that in the feedback to WotC.

[Psyren]

You keep coming back to this mutually exclusive idea, but it's entirely irrelevant. Point #4 was that the subclass section of Paladin tells you at level 3 that the oaths your character took since joining the class are represented by your subclass. Since that information is conveyed in a section that you are not directed to until level 3, you either look ahead and consider that information prior to reaching level 3, or your don't look ahead and retroactively apply that information once you reach level 3.
...
Look, all I'm really saying is that information conveyed at level 3 in the playtest packet that tells you your Paladin has been taking oaths since level 1 really should be conveyed at level 1 instead of level 3.


So if they included the "body of oaths" info in the PHB class fluff prior to the subclass entry, would that satisfy you? Because I don't expect a UA to include all the background text that will be present in the actual book, and neither should you.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Because I don't expect a UA to include all the background text that will be present in the actual book, and neither should you.

Thank you for indicating what someone else should or should not expect, Papa Psyren.

Real events have indicated that even newer products, such as SpellJammer, need many more people to read and review D&D Flavor Text prior to publication, than were reading it before.

One common critique that has been leveled at 5e is the distinction between flavor and mechanical descriptions is often muddled, and it is unclear how the two will interact.

In part this is due mechanics and flavor being nearly entirely divorced.
The flavor text might say one thing, but at the end of the day the mechanics are going to be some iteration of a previously released ability, be it the next option to add Misty Step to a PC, or the same Push/Pull Forced Movement that abounds in 4e and 5e.

‘Playtesting’ Roleplaying options should absolutely happen. As it is, so many people decry that D&D, as a system, can not handle anything not related to combat, and people should use other rules to handle Roleplaying.

Given this community feedback on this type of ‘background’ text would be useful, in my opinion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the original topic, meh. It's a change. Neither excites me nor enrages me.

On paladins--my headcanon is slightly different, enough to make 3rd level subclasses make enough sense (for me). For me, the Oath is not the actual literal oath-promises made. The Oath that gives power is more like the cause (and the paladin's unswerving dedication to that cause) for which they fight/live/work. Some paladins swear lots and lots of oaths in sequence, witnessed by orders and deities and suchlike. They have no more and no less power than the desperate man on returning home and seeing his family slaughtered by the evil tyrant, who vows in his heart, in feelings more than words, to vanquish the evil no matter the cost. And many people swear oaths...and get no supernatural power.

So a level 1 paladin has already found a Cause--he's had his Call to Adventure, the event or whatever than put him on the path of single-minded focus. While the details may not have crystalized at that point, he knows he has Purpose and has already sacrificed his normal self-will (the lazy parts that would stay at home, stay safe, turn away when others are suffering [for Devotion paladins]/let others tell him what to do [Conquest paladins], etc). That grants some power. As they adventure and level up, the Cause and Purpose crystallize in the form of the Oaths.

-----

Of course, this headcanon makes the ever-present paladin dips somewhat awkward without extra explanation. "Yeah, I have this purpose. But I'm not going to actually pursue it or sacrifice for it much." But to me, that's a feature not a bug. But that's a separate conversation.

[GooeyChewie]

So this whole disagreement is over the fact that the UA, which isn't the final form of the class, doesn't tell you the ramifications of a fluff line about oaths up front, but is buried in the 3rd level verbiage? Sounds more like you need to include that in the feedback to WotC.
Yeah, pretty much. It started from a standpoint of hoping that the "baby pact" for Warlocks helps their fluff make more sense than the Paladin fluff. At this point it's feedback relevant to the upcoming UA (in the sense that how we receive Warlock may help determine what changes WotC makes to Paladin).

Edit: Either that, or leave the oath thing as an overall class power source and pick something different for the subclasses. The initial class fluff talks about oaths, which wouldn't be confusing if you didn't also gain an Oath subclass at level 3.


So if they included the "body of oaths" info in the PHB class fluff prior to the subclass entry, would that satisfy you? Because I don't expect a UA to include all the background text that will be present in the actual book, and neither should you.
Yes, if Paladins had a feature at level 1 explaining that they start taking oaths at level 1 and that those oaths are the source of their power, even if that feature was entirely a ribbon, it would make the fluff of the entire class much more coherent. It would be less confusing than needing to refer to the level 3 subclass features to fully understand levels 1 and 2.

While it's true that the UA cannot reasonably include all the background text that will eventually be in the PHB, it is reasonable to provide feedback on how and where the background text that is included is presented.

[Psyren]

Thank you for indicating what someone else should or should not expect, Papa Psyren.

That's my opinion and I stand by it.


Given this community feedback on this type of ‘background’ text would be useful, in my opinion.

You can provide feedback on the flavor text they've provided, but otherwise I disagree - cluttering up the playtest with the entirety of what they plan to put in the PHB is a waste of valuable real estate. Look at the first Black Flag packet, they burned literally half of it on chaff like explaining what a roleplaying game is and what dice are.



Of course, this headcanon makes the ever-present paladin dips somewhat awkward without extra explanation. "Yeah, I have this purpose. But I'm not going to actually pursue it or sacrifice for it much." But to me, that's a feature not a bug. But that's a separate conversation.

That's just it, I think this helps the fiction considerably. If the starting oaths in the body are broad (or as detractors have labeled them, "generic") then not only are they easy to fit in with multiple paladin subclasses, they're easy to work alongside multiple multiclass configurations too, including dips. All that they really need to do is grant a basic level of martial and magical prowess to fit with what you get at level 1.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's just it, I think this helps the fiction considerably. If the starting oaths in the body are broad (or as detractors have labeled them, "generic") then not only are they easy to fit in with multiple paladin subclasses, they're easy to work alongside multiple multiclass configurations too, including dips. All that they really need to do is grant a basic level of martial and magical prowess to fit with what you get at level 1.

I was talking specifically of the headcanon, not anything about the UA. My views on generic fluff are well known. As are my views on multiclassing. So I won't rehash them here.

[Atranen]

Soo it seems this thread has gone off the rails.. lol

One thought about clerics and their domains/subclasses.. I wonder if it's time to bring back the "specialty priest" concept from 2e. Back in the day, priests/clerics didn't have access to Everything; they were limited by "spheres" (domains) to which they had greater or lesser access. 3e tossed this but kept domains and we ended up with CoDzillas.

I wonder how this would work in a 5.5e

I like this idea a lot. It adds to the theming for clerics of different deities even more than domains do. I think a similar idea for warlock would work great too. The challenge, of course, will be maintaining some level of balance across so many different options...which makes me think it's unlikely they'll pursue this direction.

[Segev]

Honestly, swapping the Pact Boon and the Patron makes a certain amount of sense to me, though it makes dipping for the super-familiar perhaps too good? Making the blade pact happen at level 1 and give all the necessary "bits" to make it a viable gish from the get-go (rather than needing to take Hexblade Patron to patch the later acquisition of a sub-par blade pact) is a plus.

I also approve of Int as a casting stat for Warlocks; it has always seemed a reasonable option, to me. I do wonder how the "play" of a Wisdom-based Warlock would feel, lore-wise, differently from a Cleric, but then, a Wislock/Cleric multiclass could also make a fair bit of sense.

[Atranen]

I also approve of Int as a casting stat for Warlocks; it has always seemed a reasonable option, to me. I do wonder how the "play" of a Wisdom-based Warlock would feel, lore-wise, differently from a Cleric, but then, a Wislock/Cleric multiclass could also make a fair bit of sense.

Narratively, a wis lock doesn't work for me...wise folks don't make deals with the devil! But the concepts it encompasses have become broad enough, that like a shaman or witch could fit.

I've always been in favor of int as a casting stat for warlocks; it helps a lot with multiclassing too.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You can provide feedback on the flavor text they've provided, but otherwise I disagree - cluttering up the playtest with the entirety of what they plan to put in the PHB is a waste of valuable real estate..

I am not envisioning the Playtest releasing all the information at once, but I do think the more opinions the product receives the better the final result.

I would love to see WotC ‘Playtest’ DMG and Monster Manual Lore Sections. In some ways, this might be even more critical than garnering feedback on mechanical elements.

[Psyren]

If high-Wis clerics can worship archfiends and gain spells, I see no reason a high-Wis warlock making a pact couldn't work myself. But if they only allow Int and Cha warlocks I'll be okay with that too.


I am not envisioning the Playtest releasing all the information at once, but I do think the more opinions the product receives the better the final result.

I would love to see WotC ‘Playtest’ DMG and Monster Manual Lore Sections. In some ways, this might be even more critical than garnering feedback on mechanical elements.

I'm definitely on board with playtesting DMG guidance, particularly where they plan to place it in the book. ("How to play the damn game" should NOT be 8 chapters in, behind worldbuilding.) MM lore I can take or leave.

[Dr.Samurai]

Honestly, swapping the Pact Boon and the Patron makes a certain amount of sense to me, though it makes dipping for the super-familiar perhaps too good? Making the blade pact happen at level 1 and give all the necessary "bits" to make it a viable gish from the get-go (rather than needing to take Hexblade Patron to patch the later acquisition of a sub-par blade pact) is a plus.
I think either way makes sense; you find something and use it and discover later you've made a deal with the devil. Or you make a deal with something and as you gain power/skill they reward you with a boon.

What doesn't make sense to me is that there are no terms to the pact, so to speak, and your relationship to the patron can be virtually non-existent. So this low level character just has all these powers, and even greater potential, for no requirements. Somewhere in the aether of the backstory, an entity was like "here, take these powers, see ya".

But, that's a design decision for practical gaming reasons.

What would be cool to see in another edition or game system would be some sort of risk/reward system (kind of) depending on how compliant you are with the terms of your pact. Risk/reward might not be the right term I'm going for, but the warlock would have a status with their patron (compliant/neutral/defiant), and depending on that status there may or may not be complications when using some of your features. The "risk" in this case is perhaps obeying your patron's every wish, and your "reward" is you can use your features without issue.

But this would require significant buy-in from the DM and be rather involved.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'll refer you back to point #1. The UA specifically says that the oaths you take beginning when you join the class are represented by the subclass. It really doesn't matter whether those oaths are similar or different from any other Paladin's oaths. They are, for your character, from the point where they joined the class, according to the UA, Oath of {insert subclass here} oaths, whether you the player consciously made that choice before level 3 or not. If you don't like it, your problem is with the UA. And it's perfectly fine to have a problem with the UA, but don't pretend that it doesn't say the pre-final oaths are represented by your subclass.

No, that's your reading of it. All the UA wording tells us is that the Oaths they swear are aimed at the subclass. But since we have proven several times that you could have a more open oath that can apply across the board, there's nothing to stop the oaths made at level 1 or 2 from being universal.

Again, Knight Radiant Oath, Oath 1 is the same no matter what, Oaths 2-5 are unique. And yet, if you asked what the full set of Oaths were for a single group, Oath 1 is still there.


I don't get why everyone is so hung up over the paladin oaths thing. Like, this is the same hobby in which if a player suddenly decides they want to multiclass it's retroactively assumed the character was working towards that the entire time. So the same can be easily done with both Oaths and Domains.

This is the logical answer. The Games Mechanics are balanced around being a fair and interesting game. The Lore adjusts to fit or is handwaved. And it's been that way the entire time for 5e Paladins. :)


One thought about clerics and their domains/subclasses.. I wonder if it's time to bring back the "specialty priest" concept from 2e. Back in the day, priests/clerics didn't have access to Everything; they were limited by "spheres" (domains) to which they had greater or lesser access. 3e tossed this but kept domains and we ended up with CoDzillas.

It probably won't happen basically because it requires breaking the entire Cleric list down along domains and reprinting multiple spell lists. It also then requires removing things like Turn Undead from the basic cleric and adding them to some but not all Domains and then coming up with something else for the domains that don't get it.

I'll also point out that the Specialty Priest lead to unique weapon and armors by domain and eventually lead into Priests being the most powerful and broken class in 2e (Player's Option: Spells & Magic says hello).


Narratively, a wis lock doesn't work for me...wise folks don't make deals with the devil! But the concepts it encompasses have become broad enough, that like a shaman or witch could fit.

Cleric of Asmodeus with a lesser Devil offering the initial connections or in a MC case offering specific extra training. Cleric of Corellon first discovering them through an Aborean Eladrin (Celestial or Arch-fey), you can find the fluff easy enough.

[GooeyChewie]

No, that's your reading of it. All the UA wording tells us is that the Oaths they swear are aimed at the subclass. But since we have proven several times that you could have a more open oath that can apply across the board, there's nothing to stop the oaths made at level 1 or 2 from being universal.
My reading of it is exactly what you said here, that the oaths Paladins swear (even at levels 1 and 2) are aimed at the subclass. I'm not sure what you think my reading of it is?

I agree that a more open oath could apply to multiple different Paladins. I don't agree that that the existence of such oaths mean that all Paladins must take the same general or universal oaths at levels 1 and 2. Your Paladin's oaths at those levels do not necessarily need to match mine. Either way, this point is irrelevant. At level 3, the oaths we have taken retroactively become represented by our subclasses regardless of whether they are the same or different. And since that fact can impact how you want to portray your oaths at levels 1 and 2, it should have been highlighted at level 1 instead of level 3.

To bring it back around to the original topic, I hope that if the "baby pact" Warlocks make at level turns out to be tied to whatever Patron you select at level 3, that the "baby pact" feature tells you that information at level 1.


Again, Knight Radiant Oath, Oath 1 is the same no matter what, Oaths 2-5 are unique. And yet, if you asked what the full set of Oaths were for a single group, Oath 1 is still there.
Cool, so you make a bunch of Knight Radiant Paladins who all happen to have the same oath at level 1. Now I make a Paladin based on Cecil from Final Fantasy IV and have him take an entirely different oath. So no, just because you can have a bunch of characters who have the same oath does not make that oath universal.

[Psyren]

I agree that a more open oath could apply to multiple different Paladins.

Great! We're getting somewhere.


I don't agree that that the existence of such oaths mean that all Paladins must take the same general or universal oaths at levels 1 and 2.

It's true that they don't have to, but you're the ones complaining that an oath difference somehow breaks the fiction. What we're trying to get you to see is that there's an alternative that doesn't involve you having to square different starting oaths granting identical starting powers at all, you can circumvent that apparent disconnect you're feeling entirely if it's truly insurmountable.


To bring it back around to the original topic, I hope that if the "baby pact" Warlocks make at level turns out to be tied to whatever Patron you select at level 3, that the "baby pact" feature tells you that information at level 1.

The only boon I could see being an issue here is Chain; after all, getting an Imp at level 1 doesn't exactly fit with being a feylock. Maybe the Chain will get you the Find Familiar spell at first level and it won't evolve until 3rd.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

My reading of it is exactly what you said here, that the oaths Paladins swear (even at levels 1 and 2) are aimed at the subclass. I'm not sure what you think my reading of it is?

You're reading is forcing a division that never had to exist. Implying that the first oaths can't all be unique and that the oaths can't be sworn at varying time.


I agree that a more open oath could apply to multiple different Paladins. I don't agree that that the existence of such oaths mean that all Paladins must take the same general or universal oaths at levels 1 and 2. Your Paladin's oaths at those levels do not necessarily need to match mine. Either way, this point is irrelevant. At level 3, the oaths we have taken retroactively become represented by our subclasses regardless of whether they are the same or different. And since that fact can impact how you want to portray your oaths at levels 1 and 2, it should have been highlighted at level 1 instead of level 3.

Cool, so change it at your table. The UA hasn't precluded any such action by you.


To bring it back around to the original topic, I hope that if the "baby pact" Warlocks make at level turns out to be tied to whatever Patron you select at level 3, that the "baby pact" feature tells you that information at level 1.

It'll work both ways. Maybe it was an Archfey from the start, maybe the book you found was mysterious and didn't reveal itself until level 3 when you choose your patron. Both work fine without any need to specify. :)


Cool, so you make a bunch of Knight Radiant Paladins who all happen to have the same oath at level 1. Now I make a Paladin based on Cecil from Final Fantasy IV and have him take an entirely different oath. So no, just because you can have a bunch of characters who have the same oath does not make that oath universal.

Cecil is a redeemed Dark Knight who spent his early years committing crimes in the name of his king because he thought that Loyalty was right.

"Strength before Weakness" I will no longer let my love for my king cloud my judgements and actions (He swears this after the village of Myst).

"Life before Death" I will no longer rely on a sword of darkness set to sap vitality and take life, but use a sword of light. (Mount Ordeals).

"Journey before Destination" My goals will never justify me risking an innocent or failing to protect another. (His overall behavior after the change).

Tadah, the same oath fits Cecil whatever his Subclass.

Again, my goal isn't to specifically give a perfect Oath that everyone agrees fits all Subclasses, I just need to prove I can do it at all, since your argument seems to be that because they start an oath at level 1 everything has to shape uniquely to the subclass. That's your interpretation and desire, not the facts of the situation.

[Dr.Samurai]

Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class. The final oath, taken at 3rd level, is the culmination of a Paladin’s training.
I'm not sure how someone reads that and not understand that the body of oaths belong to the subclass. Seems pretty clear to me.

However, if the question is about how the paladin has powers beginning from level 1, but the oaths are tied to the subclass at level 3, I would say that the powers from the paladin's training (mentioned at the end of that quote) and that the oaths you are making in levels 1 and 2 grant no mechanical benefits except to set you up for level 3 when you take your "final oath".

But I may not be understanding this discussion well enough.

[Witty Username]

My only thoughts on paladin, I don't think managed the shift well from always Lawful good to any alignment. The class doesn't deliver well on concepts outside of its narrative space it has previously been defined by.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure how someone reads that and not understand that the body of oaths belong to the subclass. Seems pretty clear to me.

Sure they do. Now point to where it says no oaths in a body can ever belong to any other subclass.



Cecil is a redeemed Dark Knight who spent his early years committing crimes in the name of his king because he thought that Loyalty was right.

"Strength before Weakness" I will no longer let my love for my king cloud my judgements and actions (He swears this after the village of Myst).

"Life before Death" I will no longer rely on a sword of darkness set to sap vitality and take life, but use a sword of light. (Mount Ordeals).

"Journey before Destination" My goals will never justify me risking an innocent or failing to protect another. (His overall behavior after the change).

Tadah, the same oath fits Cecil whatever his Subclass.

Again, my goal isn't to specifically give a perfect Oath that everyone agrees fits all Subclasses, I just need to prove I can do it at all, since your argument seems to be that because they start an oath at level 1 everything has to shape uniquely to the subclass. That's your interpretation and desire, not the facts of the situation.

^ This. (Also I see what you did there w/ Cecil the Dark Knight :smalltongue:)

[Atranen]

I'm not sure how someone reads that and not understand that the body of oaths belong to the subclass. Seems pretty clear to me.

However, if the question is about how the paladin has powers beginning from level 1, but the oaths are tied to the subclass at level 3, I would say that the powers from the paladin's training (mentioned at the end of that quote) and that the oaths you are making in levels 1 and 2 grant no mechanical benefits except to set you up for level 3 when you take your "final oath".

But I may not be understanding this discussion well enough.

It's really that simple, despite the vitriol. What you write is a fine interpretation of how it works now.

The proposed changes are

1) Because 1a) you are also taking an oath at levels 1 & 2 and the paladin oath at 3 implicitly includes these and 1b) the oaths at 3 differ substantively, the oaths at 1 & 2 ought to differ substantively. This way you don't have to choose an oath at 3 and then figure out what your oath was at 1 & 2.

2) If the oaths at 1 & 2 differ substantively, it would be better for them to provide some kind of mechanical differentiation.

It seems possible to add (2) in line with the 'baby pact' thing warlocks get, which is how we ended up here.


My only thoughts on paladin, I don't think managed the shift well from always Lawful good to any alignment. The class doesn't deliver well on concepts outside of its narrative space it has previously been defined by.


I think it's possible to make the shift--paladin as a holy warrior of an ideal, the martial version of the cleric--but I agree that they've lost some charm from the shift. The oath doesn't make sense in all contexts, and to square that circle they've had to make it less meaningful in cases where it ought to matter.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Conversely, you've got stuff like Goetic sorcerers [Warlocks], or people who "sell their soul to the devil for cornchips". The "I made a pact with an otherworldly creature, knowing full well what I'm doing" is pretty strongly represented in fiction, too.

This is still possible to represent by having your PC spend 2 levels “proving themselves” to their patron before getting unique patron dependent attention.

Flavor isn’t just free, it’s an understood element of player buy-in. The difference between two L1 blade locks will mechanically depend on Cantrip and spell choice, which can already make them east from west, but if one says Archfey and the other Fiend, then the blades they wield, even if both “long sword”
Would immediately mark them as different where one has a fine blade of glass while the other has a wide flat blade of black iron. One tormented by their patron’s demands, the other joyously making offerings to theirs.

Any argument about “requiring a player to buy-in” is someone that wants a premade PC.

[GooeyChewie]

...you're the ones complaining that an oath difference somehow breaks the fiction.
No I am not.

The thing that I am saying is a problem is that the Paladin subclass feature, which players are not directed to read until level 3, tells the player something which was relevant but not disclosed two levels prior. I have pointed out multiple times that whether or not the pre-final oaths are the same or different between Paladins is irrelevant to that issue.


You're reading is forcing a division that never had to exist. Implying that the first oaths can't all be unique and that the oaths can't be sworn at varying time.
I'm not forcing a division. I'm just also not adding anything that says all pre-final oaths have to be the same for all Paladins.


Cool, so change it at your table. The UA hasn't precluded any such action by you.
Allowing players to choose their own oaths is not a change. Nothing in the UA says that Paladins don't decide their own oaths independent of each other. Nothing says they have to be different, and nothing says they have to be the same.



Cecil is a redeemed Dark Knight who spent his early years committing crimes in the name of his king because he thought that Loyalty was right.

"Strength before Weakness" I will no longer let my love for my king cloud my judgements and actions (He swears this after the village of Myst).

"Life before Death" I will no longer rely on a sword of darkness set to sap vitality and take life, but use a sword of light. (Mount Ordeals).

"Journey before Destination" My goals will never justify me risking an innocent or failing to protect another. (His overall behavior after the change).

Tadah, the same oath fits Cecil whatever his Subclass.

Again, my goal isn't to specifically give a perfect Oath that everyone agrees fits all Subclasses, I just need to prove I can do it at all, since your argument seems to be that because they start an oath at level 1 everything has to shape uniquely to the subclass. That's your interpretation and desire, not the facts of the situation.
My argument is that because the playtest Paladin subclass section says all your oaths are represented by your subclass, whatever oaths your character made at earlier levels are represented by the subclass regardless of what those oaths are or even if you knew your character was supposed to be taking oaths. And that this information, which applies to your character at levels 1 and 2, should be highlighted at level 1 rather than level 3. Either that, or it should be changed in such a way that the subclass you choose at level 3 does not represent the oaths that your character has been taking since they joined the class.

Your argument seems to be that if you could possibly come up with an oath vague enough that all Paladins could take it, then all Paladins must have made that oath. Not only does your argument not address the issue of not telling players information relevant to their characters until two levels after it becomes relevant, it ignores the fact that each player gets to decide their own Paladin's oaths. Just because you could twist the Knight Radiant oath enough to kinda sorta fit Cecil (but not really), doesn't mean you get to tell me that my Cecil-based character has to use it as his initial oath.

[paladinn]

My only thoughts on paladin, I don't think managed the shift well from always Lawful good to any alignment. The class doesn't deliver well on concepts outside of its narrative space it has previously been defined by.

Agreed 110%. I've loved paladins since 1e (obviously). When I got to playing Mentzer Classic, I was so excited to hear the Companion set was going to include paladins! Then I was so disappointed by how they presented as just a higher-level option for fighters. But I was Really disillusioned by the introduction of the "Avenger" as the "Chaotic" equivalent.

Some people just really don't like good guys..

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Some people just really don't like good guys..

It's not that, I don't think. It's kinda two issues. Players hate RP requirements, especially those of us who really grew up with 3E and forum culture. A whole generation of D&D players was brought up on 'fluff is mutable' and 'ask your DM'. I'm basically in favor of both, but both have also been extended out into simply removing RP-based requirements, whether that's alignment, affiliations, extraordinary expenditure requirements like tithes, or specific cultural niches (requiring Faerun wood elf, for example, theoretically locking a kagonesti character out unless they get the DM to waive the requirement). I think WOTC has overreacted to this, especially in an edition where they've tried to pull back on interchangeable crunch and add more emphasis on social RP.

Unfortunately, that exacerbates the second problem. Paladins in particular have bad reputations at tables because their old alignment/code restrictions often lead paladin players to be tremendous jerks at the table. Trigger-happy DMs made this a lot worse by forcing paladin players to hew to absurdly rigid, complex, illogical behavioral standards at the risk of stripping away all their class features. The combination of these things led to paladins being in table terms Lawful Jerks. People looked at what was happening and blamed the mechanics for what was really a failure of table etiquette and DM ability.

[Dr.Samurai]

No I am not.

The thing that I am saying is a problem is that the Paladin subclass feature, which players are not directed to read until level 3, tells the player something which was relevant but not disclosed two levels prior. I have pointed out multiple times that whether or not the pre-final oaths are the same or different between Paladins is irrelevant to that issue.


Yeah I agree it's wonky design. It seems easily solved by directing the players to consider their Oath at level 1. One of my barbarians mulitclassed into Paladin, and the DM and I were working through how that might happen a level or two beforehand.

I suppose though that the point is if players are considering the subclass at level 1... they may as well choose it then. Which does seem to make sense.


Some people just really don't like good guys..
I agree; there's a lot of love for the anti-hero lol.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm not forcing a division. I'm just also not adding anything that says all pre-final oaths have to be the same for all Paladins.

You're interpreting a rule a certain way, people are disagreeing and pointing out other ways to read it.


Allowing players to choose their own oaths is not a change. Nothing in the UA says that Paladins don't decide their own oaths independent of each other. Nothing says they have to be different, and nothing says they have

Yep, nothing says they have to be different or the same, problem solved, class is intact and everyone plays it the way they want at their table.


My argument is that because the playtest Paladin subclass section says all your oaths are represented by your subclass, whatever oaths your character made at earlier levels are represented by the subclass regardless of what those oaths are or even if you knew your character was supposed to be taking oaths. And that this information, which applies to your character at levels 1 and 2, should be highlighted at level 1 rather than level 3. Either that, or it should be changed in such a way that the subclass you choose at level 3 does not represent the oaths that your character has been taking since they joined the class.

Yes, you fall on the side of the spectrum that says Mechanics have to constantly reward and cater to the flavor, vs the other side of that spectrum that says the mechanics do what they say they do rules wise and you bend the flavor as you want around them. As for your last point, no one says they have to. They can take oaths that appeal to a wider range of ideals and things with only the oaths at level 3 being unique to the specific subclass. Glad we all agree.


Your argument seems to be that if you could possibly come up with an oath vague enough that all Paladins could take it, then all Paladins must have made that oath.

Not the argument I made. I gave an example of how one set of oaths could fit multiple things, thus negating the idea that somehow everything had to be catered level by level. If some DM WANTS to cater it level by level, go for it, I'm not going to call foul. But don't insist it's not possible to have a same set oath for every subclass, because it is. Not required, just possible. Again, my argument has never been that the First Ideal (or any other oath) HAS to apply, only that it could.


Not only does your argument not address the issue of not telling players information relevant to their characters until two levels after it becomes relevant, it ignores the fact that each player gets to decide their own Paladin's oaths.

Not remotely true, first, there's no mechanical choice until level 3, which is then retconned to justify the rest of the paladin levels. Just like if your completely to now normal human fighter MC's into a Sorcerer suddenly the ancient magic in their blood (that was never before brought up) comes to life. At this point they were ALWAYS dragon or celestial or whatever blooded, retcon complete. Nothing in my suggestions forces any type of choice, it simply points out a possibility.


Just because you could twist the Knight Radiant oath enough to kinda sorta fit Cecil (but not really), doesn't mean you get to tell me that my Cecil-based character has to use it as his initial oath.

Of course your Cecil based character doesn't have to use my oaths. Unless it's my table and I've established certain oaths for all Paladins. Also, what's being twisted? The First Ideal is a very simplistic creed and I didn't have to take any twisting. Cecil flat out refused to be weak in the face of things he believes are wrong, he flat out gives up the life taking evil powers for healing and protective ones and he absolutely does not believe ends justify the means. That's literally all the First Ideal, pretty words or not, means.

[Kane0]

Narratively, a wis lock doesn't work for me...wise folks don't make deals with the devil!


What about celestials, seelie fey or a good great wyrm?

[Atranen]

What about celestials, seelie fey or a good great wyrm?

Honestly, I've never cared for warlocks with those patrons either. That's why I say I think it's a broad enough thing now to make it ok narratively. But those patrons just seem so...weak, compared to the sorts of deities clerics are getting powers from (and the warlock themself at 20th level) that they don't work for me (unless the game is limited to a low level range where those beings remain effectively gods).

[GooeyChewie]

Yep, nothing says they have to be different or the same, problem solved, class is intact and everyone plays it the way they want at their table.
That you for acknowledging that not ALL Paladins take certain oaths.


Yes, you fall on the side of the spectrum that says Mechanics have to constantly reward and cater to the flavor, vs the other side of that spectrum that says the mechanics do what they say they do rules wise and you bend the flavor as you want around them. As for your last point, no one says they have to. They can take oaths that appeal to a wider range of ideals and things with only the oaths at level 3 being unique to the specific subclass. Glad we all agree.
I'm on the side of the game material conveying information to the player when it becomes relevant, regardless of whether the information is mechanics or fluff.

[Psyren]

No I am not.

The thing that I am saying is a problem is that the Paladin subclass feature, which players are not directed to read until level 3, tells the player something which was relevant but not disclosed two levels prior. I have pointed out multiple times that whether or not the pre-final oaths are the same or different between Paladins is irrelevant to that issue.

The current UA description of the paladin, which comes before level 1 in the class, does tell them that the thing that unites all Paladins are their oaths. So the player is indeed prompted to think about what those oaths might be well before level 3. More importantly, there is no prompt for them to write those oaths down in blood or sharpie or etch them in stone anywhere, ergo aligning them with the subclass later is easy.

I have no doubt that the Warlock description in the next packet will include similar fluff around the impetus of the "baby pact" (I really hope they don't stick with that term.)


I'm not forcing a division. I'm just also not adding anything that says all pre-final oaths have to be the same for all Paladins.

We're not adding anything either. Whether common or unique, the text is silent on every oath but the culminating (subclass) one. The only thing we do know for sure is that whatever the pre-3rd-level-oaths entail, all paladins get the same powers from them.



Allowing players to choose their own oaths is not a change. Nothing in the UA says that Paladins don't decide their own oaths independent of each other. Nothing says they have to be different, and nothing says they have

You appear not to have finished this thought but regardless, they have indeed highlighted that paladins take oaths before level 3, otherwise they wouldn't be paladins at all. And no doubt, the final PHB will elaborate on the playtest language for each class entry even further.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Honestly, I've never cared for warlocks with those patrons either. That's why I say I think it's a broad enough thing now to make it ok narratively. But those patrons just seem so...weak, compared to the sorts of deities clerics are getting powers from (and the warlock themself at 20th level) that they don't work for me (unless the game is limited to a low level range where those beings remain effectively gods).

But when you're a cleric you share the ideals of your god and must support their paths and goals. A Warlock already has done their deal and gotten the keys to their power. A Celestial Warlock is not forced to keep serving the specific aims of their Archon Patron or risk losing their powers.


That you for acknowledging that not ALL Paladins take certain oaths.

No one ever said they did.


I'm on the side of the game material conveying information to the player when it becomes relevant, regardless of whether the information is mechanics or fluff.

Which they do. Right in the basic intro for Paladin it says "A Paladin swears to stand against corrupting influences and to hunt the forces of ruin wherever they lurk. Different Paladins focus on various aspects of these causes, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work." So looks like right there is a universal oath that explains their powers at level 1 and 2.

The part you quote about the culmination is specific to the Subclass and oaths. "Each of this class’s subclasses represents a body of oaths that a Paladin begins taking upon joining the class. The final oath, taken at 3rd level, is the culmination of a Paladin’s training."

So, a Paladin begins their training and takes Oaths to stand against corrupting influence and the forces of ruin. Then at level 3 they swear a further specific oath to their subclass.

Problem solved.

[Theodoxus]

I think the disconnect is the difference between the character and the player.

In all instances, regardless of class, your character, you know, the one that's making the Oath as a Paladin or appealing to a Patron for power as a Warlock, or suddenly knowing how to cast spells as an Eldritch Knight, knows exactly what they're doing and what they're desiring, even if the player themselves don't necessarily.

The player isn't making an Oath, isn't even coming up with an actual Oath in the vast majority of cases; the player isn't making an appeal to some extraplanar power (and if they are, you probably have different problems at your table); the player isn't learning to cast spells (see appeal above!).

So, again, I don't understand why it matters. If anything, if a player is playing their 1st and 2nd level Paladin in the aspect of Devotion, and then at level 3 picks Conquest, that's a great time to figure out why, what suddenly occurred in their life to make such a 180 turn in outlook. Or don't. It's a gamist issue at its simplest. It seems half of us wouldn't blink an eye, and the other half would have a conniption fit if that happened at their table without an explanation. But that's a table problem, not a WotC problem.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

But that's a table problem, not a WotC problem.

Well, except that it's a foreseeable problem and hopefully one WOTC will take into consideration as this material moves into further phases of development.

[Amnestic]

But when you're a cleric you share the ideals of your god and must support their paths and goals.

Not necessarily! A cleric is chosen by a god, not vice versa. While it's probably not very common or popular as a character concept, "this god keeps forcing their powers on me even when I don't follow them" is a totally viable and lore-appropriate character concept.

[RedWarlock]

They fouled up making the warlock to begin with. The subclass should have been the pact style, not the patron. Leave the patron features to the invocations to add mechanics to the flavor. That way you could have actual melee/weaponry features attached to Pact Blade, better minion/summon mechanics for Chain, and better spellcasting for Tome, instead of shuffling that into poor invocation support.

Same for Cleric. Deity is flavor at lvl 1, but 3 should be Domain-as-role, with every deity choice allowing at least two domains to pick from.

[Witty Username]

Not necessarily! A cleric is chosen by a god, not vice versa. While it's probably not very common or popular as a character concept, "this god keeps forcing their powers on me even when I don't follow them" is a totally viable and lore-appropriate character concept.
In my opinion, one becomes the other very quickly.
If a god gives a cleric a bunch of powers, only for them to murder hobo through the countryside, that god is going to at the very least question the resource allocation.

I think the flavor idea is more, cleric with wear and tear, they serve the god but adventures are more an obligation than a want.

Then again, alot of clerics I have seen jumped at the "aligned with a princible" kinda stuff, so no god required at all. It may be hard to tell the difference after awhile from a cleric that is working for the woman upstairs or not.

[Slipjig]

It's probably true that most players don't start a class without knowing what subclass they plan to take. But the stated goal of moving all subclasses to level 3 was so that players could create a level 1 character while genuinely not picking a subclass when they start. Pointing out that you can make the problem go away by choosing your subclass at level 1 is counterproductive to the stated goal of not needing to choose your subclass until level 3.

But you still have a pretty good idea of what your character is like, even if you haven't picked out their subclass. An character whose motivation is fueled by burning hatred and a desire for revenge might be a Vengence or Conquest paladin, but it's not like they are suddenly going to turn around and become a Redeemer. Somebody who is taking up arms out of a sense of duty to their liege will almost certainly turn out to be a Crown or Devotion paladin (or possibly Conquest, if the liege is a conquerer).

I mean, you certainly COULD have the paladin pivot to a non-obvious subclass when they make the jump to Level 3, but it should probably be a major story point in their character arc (e.g. they expected to go Crown, but after their city was sacked and their liege killed, they went Vengence instead).

[Psyren]

Not necessarily! A cleric is chosen by a god, not vice versa. While it's probably not very common or popular as a character concept, "this god keeps forcing their powers on me even when I don't follow them" is a totally viable and lore-appropriate character concept.

I don't disagree, though I'd question why that cleric keeps praying for more of them if they're truly opposed. So I'd expect at least a grudging acceptance of the powers in question.


But you still have a pretty good idea of what your character is like, even if you haven't picked out their subclass. An character whose motivation is fueled by burning hatred and a desire for revenge might be a Vengence or Conquest paladin, but it's not like they are suddenly going to turn around and become a Redeemer. Somebody who is taking up arms out of a sense of duty to their liege will almost certainly turn out to be a Crown or Devotion paladin (or possibly Conquest, if the liege is a conquerer).

I mean, you certainly COULD have the paladin pivot to a non-obvious subclass when they make the jump to Level 3, but it should probably be a major story point in their character arc (e.g. they expected to go Crown, but after their city was sacked and their liege killed, they went Vengence instead).

And even if they do sharply pivot at level 3, so what? The beauty about oaths to oppose corruption and ruin is that different paladins can define those concepts in vastly different ways.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Not necessarily! A cleric is chosen by a god, not vice versa. While it's probably not very common or popular as a character concept, "this god keeps forcing their powers on me even when I don't follow them" is a totally viable and lore-appropriate character concept.

I would point out that at that time you are clearly still servicing the purposes of that god. They see something you don't and are keeping you stronger for a reason. Gods don't just haphazardly toss divine power around, as Psyren said, there's some sort of open line of communication. Where as a Warlock has their power now and can do whatever they want with it approval or not from the Patron that taught them. And Similarly a Paladin is sworn to their ideal, so even if a God started the path, if the Paladin's view of the ideal moves lanes, so be it.

[Rukelnikov]

And Similarly a Paladin is sworn to their ideal, so even if a God started the path, if the Paladin's view of the ideal moves lanes, so be it.

A paladin sworn to an ideal that later "moves lanes" has only one lane to move into, Oathbreaker.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

A paladin sworn to an ideal that later "moves lanes" has only one lane to move into, Oathbreaker.

If the moving lanes breaks the oaths, yes, but otherwise? No. In fact, I have an in game example. Have an Oath of the Crown Paladin. He swore to the people and the land, not the specific king. His basic oaths were stolen from the Windrunners, the First Ideal I'd spoken to, then Protect those who cannot protect themselves, Protect even those I hate so long as it is right. Then the Oath of the Crown Specific four.

At the start of the story the character was very much a Chosen hero by a god. (The campaign and this character were patterned on Link in Legend of Zelda). Sometime in the middle of the campaign he learned about the cyclical nature, that the Evil will return every several thousand years and this all gets repeated and each time people are hurt and killed while the "Chosen" heroes have to stand up and save them.

And he demanded of the gods he served "Why? How are the FOUR of you not powerful enough to stop this? How are the FOUR of you not able to seal, banish or destroy this evil so that it doesn't keep coming back and hurting people." The answers were, unsurprisingly, unsatisfactory to him so he decided it was time to train the people, train them and improve the society he lived in that when the evil comes people, not chosen heroes, decide the course of destiny.

So, full out Loyal Champion of the God of Light to "The Gods are unworthy of us and should be set aside so we can move forward". Complete oath break? Nope.

The Law: Is still paramount, but laws founded by a council of people who are mortal, who live among the people, not laws set by a distant god.

Loyalty: Never changed at all, his loyalty was always to the people specifically.

Courage: "If you don't act, who will?" Courage to stand even against gods because it's what's right? No breaking of an oath here.

Responsibility: You must deal with the consequences of your actions. Well, In doing what he did it opened up people to more death at the start, facing things that would have traditionally just been "Him" He paid reparations for deaths of people lost in the war, he lead from the frontline and took all risks he asked of anyone else. And he dealt as being the shield for the people, not against a repeating evil but against an angry god who wanted to force things back "the way they should be."

This Paladin shifted lanes full force from serving a Deity to Actively fighting one and never once changed his oaths at all.

[Rukelnikov]

If the moving lanes breaks the oaths, yes, but otherwise? No. In fact, I have an in game example. Have an Oath of the Crown Paladin. He swore to the people and the land, not the specific king. His basic oaths were stolen from the Windrunners, the First Ideal I'd spoken to, then Protect those who cannot protect themselves, Protect even those I hate so long as it is right. Then the Oath of the Crown Specific four.

At the start of the story the character was very much a Chosen hero by a god. (The campaign and this character were patterned on Link in Legend of Zelda). Sometime in the middle of the campaign he learned about the cyclical nature, that the Evil will return every several thousand years and this all gets repeated and each time people are hurt and killed while the "Chosen" heroes have to stand up and save them.

And he demanded of the gods he served "Why? How are the FOUR of you not powerful enough to stop this? How are the FOUR of you not able to seal, banish or destroy this evil so that it doesn't keep coming back and hurting people." The answers were, unsurprisingly, unsatisfactory to him so he decided it was time to train the people, train them and improve the society he lived in that when the evil comes people, not chosen heroes, decide the course of destiny.

So, full out Loyal Champion of the God of Light to "The Gods are unworthy of us and should be set aside so we can move forward". Complete oath break? Nope.

The Law: Is still paramount, but laws founded by a council of people who are mortal, who live among the people, not laws set by a distant god.

Loyalty: Never changed at all, his loyalty was always to the people specifically.

Courage: "If you don't act, who will?" Courage to stand even against gods because it's what's right? No breaking of an oath here.

Responsibility: You must deal with the consequences of your actions. Well, In doing what he did it opened up people to more death at the start, facing things that would have traditionally just been "Him" He paid reparations for deaths of people lost in the war, he lead from the frontline and took all risks he asked of anyone else. And he dealt as being the shield for the people, not against a repeating evil but against an angry god who wanted to force things back "the way they should be."

This Paladin shifted lanes full force from serving a Deity to Actively fighting one and never once changed his oaths at all.

If the oath was sworn to the gods, then he's still an Oathbreaker, your word is your bond, if you gave it to the wrong cause, you must still uphold it or become an Oathbreaker, it doesn't mean he has to be evil or do anything differently, but in the name of good or not, he broke his word. Doesn't mean he can't atone, likely after a relevant moment in the campaign against the gods.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

If the oath was sworn to the gods, then he's still an Oathbreaker, your word is your bond, if you gave it to the wrong cause, you must still uphold it or become an Oathbreaker, it doesn't mean he has to be evil or do anything differently, but in the name of good or not, he broke his word. Doesn't mean he can't atone, likely after a relevant moment in the campaign against the gods.

And that may be how it would be run at your table, which I won't dispute or judge because each of us runs slightly different tables at base. But for general RAW and RAI the text of the actual official rules only state for Oathbreaker "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains."

The character in question didn't break his oath to pursue dark ambition or serve an evil power. He broke his bond to the original god to better serve his oath and be true to it.

The Paladin rules also say "For others, the actual swearing of the oath is a formality, an official stamp on what has always been true in the paladin’s heart." So his oath in his heart wasn't to the gods, it was to the people.

Lastly the Oath of the Crown says "The paladins who swear this oath dedicate themselves to serving society and, in particular, the just laws that hold society together."

So in all cases, they were serving a god, the god betrayed their ideals, they revolted against said God, but never broke the actual oath. Certainly not in pursuit of dark ambition or evil power.

The difference here is between the Paladin and the Cleric. A Cleric in the same situation would lose their powers because the deity would specifically revoke them. The Paladin, however, hasn't broken their oath, just moved against the thing that originally witnessed the other.

[Rukelnikov]

And that may be how it would be run at your table, which I won't dispute or judge because each of us runs slightly different tables at base. But for general RAW and RAI the text of the actual official rules only state for Oathbreaker "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin’s heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains."

The character in question didn't break his oath to pursue dark ambition or serve an evil power. He broke his bond to the original god to better serve his oath and be true to it.

The Paladin rules also say "For others, the actual swearing of the oath is a formality, an official stamp on what has always been true in the paladin’s heart." So his oath in his heart wasn't to the gods, it was to the people.

Lastly the Oath of the Crown says "The paladins who swear this oath dedicate themselves to serving society and, in particular, the just laws that hold society together."

So in all cases, they were serving a god, the god betrayed their ideals, they revolted against said God, but never broke the actual oath. Certainly not in pursuit of dark ambition or evil power.

The difference here is between the Paladin and the Cleric. A Cleric in the same situation would lose their powers because the deity would specifically revoke them. The Paladin, however, hasn't broken their oath, just moved against the thing that originally witnessed the other.

It hard to evaluate the situation without having seen it develop. However, if the gods were mere witnesses, then he didn't move lanes in respect to his Oath.

I didn't remember the evil or dark ambitions being a requirement, what happens if a paladin intentionally breaks their oath for ****s and giggles? Do they keep their subclass powers?

[Psyren]

A paladin sworn to an ideal that later "moves lanes" has only one lane to move into, Oathbreaker.

Not anymore - even if Oathbreaker still exists as a player option in 2024, the default for the new paladin will be "the GM determines your new subclass" which is a lot closer to the retraining rules in Tasha's than it is the "you have only one option now" from the 2014 DMG.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It hard to evaluate the situation without having seen it develop. However, if the gods were mere witnesses, then he didn't move lanes in respect to his Oath.

I didn't remember the evil or dark ambitions being a requirement, what happens if a paladin intentionally breaks their oath for ****s and giggles? Do they keep their subclass powers?

Probably semantics then, either way, my stance and how I read the rules is that the Paladin must be loyal to the Oath, not whoever they gave the oath too.

Using the same Crown Paladin, if they swore to a king and the king turned evil would you honestly say the Paladin breaks their oath by removing the king from power and giving the throne to a good prince or such? They "broke" their oath to the king. But I'd argue their oath is to the kingdom, not the king. Similarly this particular paladin swore to a god to uphold the land, the people and their security and safety. He didn't break the oath, he betrayed the Oath Giver.

For your second, Paladins I tend to operate on a sliding scale. If they truly betray their oath and it's not for evil reasons I would see if some other oath would fit and shift them. Or, if they truly broke oath entirely and had nothing that fit I'd give the option to just switch all the Paladin levels for Fighter Levels 1 for 1. But that's all house ruling. I don't think there's an official word, or rather I think it's the idea that without going truly evil you haven't really strayed far from your oath.

[Witty Username]

I didn't remember the evil or dark ambitions being a requirement, what happens if a paladin intentionally breaks their oath for ****s and giggles? Do they keep their subclass powers?

At least for the oathbreaker subclass, it is somewhat implied by the aura of demon buffing at the very least.

But that is more a strike against the subclass, in theory the specific context should be more impactful than it implies.
--
I am a big fan of The War Prayer, so I am pretty open to oaths as having multiple interpretations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As I see it, paladins don't swear Oaths to individuals. They swear Oaths to causes. And as long as the cause (in their eyes) remains righteous and they remain committed wholly to that cause, they haven't abandoned their Oath. They may falter, they may fall short, but as long as they're acting to maintain it and accept that the cause is still Right, they're not Oathbreaker/fallen.

In the case of the Oath of the Crown, if they've sworn specifically fealty to a particular individual, they're caught in what I've heard (in a different, non-D&D but still fictional context) called Honor's Paradox. Paraphrasing, it's basically the question of divided loyalty--if you've sworn to serve a person and to serve honor/the right and the person who commands your fealty commands you to do something dishonorable (or goes insane or evil, etc), what do you do? You're caught in a fork and can only fulfill one set of oaths.

Paladins, in my mind, are sworn to the higher ideals. You may swear to serve a king in his service to Law and Goodness/Honor/etc. As soon as they depart from that, the paladin is required to (at least) protest and likely leave his service (forsaking the lesser oath to keep the greater Oath). And possibly even bound (depending on his Cause) to work to overthrow the dishonorable king.

It's this very sacrifice, the knowledge that you're intentionally saying "I am willing to forsake all kith, kin, and worldly prestige, honor, and respect in order to fulfill my Oath" that gives (in my mind) the paladin his power. The Oath isn't a person--it's a reflection of the oldest laws (sacrifice is power). Or in a different viewpoint, the power of a paladin comes from themselves. They're so convinced of their righteousness and the rightness of their cause that they tell the universe "this is how it must be" and the universe bends to that belief. If, and only if, of course, if the paladin themselves actually believes at his core in that rightness. The Oath is a reflection, an outward act that acts as a signal of this inward purity of purpose.

What does that mean? I doubt if any two paladins actually swear the same real Oath. The words? Don't really matter. A paladin could have power without ever swearing any verbal Oaths; a person kneeling in the ashes of their life, their family murdered by evil-doers may swear the Oath of Vengeance in their heart without any words at all and have more power than someone who went through all the knightly training and swore oaths before the literal avatars of the gods themselves. Because for one, the sacrifice of self-will is total. And the other is still serving two masters (the order and public image as well as the Oath itself).

[Rukelnikov]

As I see it, paladins don't swear Oaths to individuals. They swear Oaths to causes. And as long as the cause (in their eyes) remains righteous and they remain committed wholly to that cause, they haven't abandoned their Oath. They may falter, they may fall short, but as long as they're acting to maintain it and accept that the cause is still Right, they're not Oathbreaker/fallen.

In the case of the Oath of the Crown, if they've sworn specifically fealty to a particular individual, they're caught in what I've heard (in a different, non-D&D but still fictional context) called Honor's Paradox. Paraphrasing, it's basically the question of divided loyalty--if you've sworn to serve a person and to serve honor/the right and the person who commands your fealty commands you to do something dishonorable (or goes insane or evil, etc), what do you do? You're caught in a fork and can only fulfill one set of oaths.

Paladins, in my mind, are sworn to the higher ideals. You may swear to serve a king in his service to Law and Goodness/Honor/etc. As soon as they depart from that, the paladin is required to (at least) protest and likely leave his service (forsaking the lesser oath to keep the greater Oath). And possibly even bound (depending on his Cause) to work to overthrow the dishonorable king.

It's this very sacrifice, the knowledge that you're intentionally saying "I am willing to forsake all kith, kin, and worldly prestige, honor, and respect in order to fulfill my Oath" that gives (in my mind) the paladin his power. The Oath isn't a person--it's a reflection of the oldest laws (sacrifice is power). Or in a different viewpoint, the power of a paladin comes from themselves. They're so convinced of their righteousness and the rightness of their cause that they tell the universe "this is how it must be" and the universe bends to that belief. If, and only if, of course, if the paladin themselves actually believes at his core in that rightness. The Oath is a reflection, an outward act that acts as a signal of this inward purity of purpose.

What does that mean? I doubt if any two paladins actually swear the same real Oath. The words? Don't really matter. A paladin could have power without ever swearing any verbal Oaths; a person kneeling in the ashes of their life, their family murdered by evil-doers may swear the Oath of Vengeance in their heart without any words at all and have more power than someone who went through all the knightly training and swore oaths before the literal avatars of the gods themselves. Because for one, the sacrifice of self-will is total. And the other is still serving two masters (the order and public image as well as the Oath itself).

I guess our views differ in the fork situation, if a paladin sworn fealty to a king, and as long as he's aligned with the kings views he serves him, but once the kings views don't align with his anymore he stops serving, then the promise was completely hollow, the paladin just does whatever they may.

A Crown in particular has "your word is your bond" in their tenets, and if they swore to serve a given king, they are indeed between a rock and a hard place, do what they think is right, or break their promise, it doesn't matter that the promise to the king is not the oath itself, he's breaking what is (supposedly at least) a very important promise, and thus breaking his own code. This would make him an Oathbreaker in my view, though I admit that the sub is not representative of non-evil Oathbreakers.


At least for the oathbreaker subclass, it is somewhat implied by the aura of demon buffing at the very least.

But that is more a strike against the subclass, in theory the specific context should be more impactful than it implies.
--
I am a big fan of The War Prayer, so I am pretty open to oaths as having multiple interpretations.

Yeah, the sub is representative of a heel-face turn, not a "knight with no honor" which is what an Oathbreaker should represent (like the army of the dead in LotR).


For your second, Paladins I tend to operate on a sliding scale. If they truly betray their oath and it's not for evil reasons I would see if some other oath would fit and shift them. Or, if they truly broke oath entirely and had nothing that fit I'd give the option to just switch all the Paladin levels for Fighter Levels 1 for 1. But that's all house ruling. I don't think there's an official word, or rather I think it's the idea that without going truly evil you haven't really strayed far from your oath.

Trading for fighter is likely the best option for non evil paladins that break their oath yeah, like it used to be in previous editions. Or maybe just removing the subclass features until attonement if the player prefers that (they'd still keep all the base class features, since the tenets are for the subs in question)

[Atranen]

--snip--

What does that mean? I doubt if any two paladins actually swear the same real Oath. The words? Don't really matter. A paladin could have power without ever swearing any verbal Oaths; a person kneeling in the ashes of their life, their family murdered by evil-doers may swear the Oath of Vengeance in their heart without any words at all and have more power than someone who went through all the knightly training and swore oaths before the literal avatars of the gods themselves. Because for one, the sacrifice of self-will is total. And the other is still serving two masters (the order and public image as well as the Oath itself).

This is a great summary and I agree with all of it. It expresses well why I think the content of oaths can differ despite the words staying the same. The words are just an expression of the oath, and can mean different things in different contexts; but an oath is something deeper and more profound. In that sense, if the paladin changes their idea of the ideals they are bound to, they may become an oathbreaker; it depends a lot on the specifics though.

[KorvinStarmast]

That is part of the issue with the Warlock class: it is used more like humus, for multi-classing dips then as a single concept.
On discussion boards? Yes. In play? Not as I've seen it play out.
Me? I play warlocks from the ground up. (My only "dip" was to pick up 1 level of Fathomless Warlock as my last level in a 20 level campaign, and that was thematic: the deity/power I served was Leviathan, which was a deep ocean Power Of The World.
[quote] If the Warlock is used primarily, to add flavor or power to another concept, then perhaps there should not be a Warlock class. But that is NOT the case. My level 10 (almosst 11) Celestial is a single class, as was my Fey/Chain, as is my other Celestial (almost 6 in CoS campaign).

So this whole disagreement is over the fact that the UA, which isn't the final form of the class, doesn't tell you the ramifications of a fluff line about oaths up front, but is buried in the 3rd level verbiage? Sounds more like you need to include that in the feedback to WotC. Amen.

I've always been in favor of int as a casting stat for warlocks; Yep. Fits the class description better.

This is still possible to represent by having your PC spend 2 levels “proving themselves” to their patron before getting unique patron dependent attention. That works well enough. (Although GOO is an outlier here).
Some people just really don't like good guys.. Yeah, that's a problem but I think it might be exaggerated on discussion boards.

What about celestials, seelie fey or a good great wyrm? indeed.

So, again, I don't understand why it matters. If anything, if a player is playing their 1st and 2nd level Paladin in the aspect of Devotion, and then at level 3 picks Conquest, that's a great time to figure out why, what suddenly occurred in their life to make such a 180 turn in outlook. Or don't. It's a gamist issue at its simplest. It seems half of us wouldn't blink an eye, and the other half would have a conniption fit if that happened at their table without an explanation. But that's a table problem, not a WotC problem. That captures a good portion of how I see this.

A paladin sworn to an ideal that later "moves lanes" has only one lane to move into, Oathbreaker. And that's a DM call in any case.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a great summary and I agree with all of it. It expresses well why I think the content of oaths can differ despite the words staying the same. The words are just an expression of the oath, and can mean different things in different contexts; but an oath is something deeper and more profound. In that sense, if the paladin changes their idea of the ideals they are bound to, they may become an oathbreaker; it depends a lot on the specifics though.

I go one step further and don't think the words of the oaths if even any are verbally sworn are all that important. The oaths are not magic words; they have no inherent power. What matters is the paladin's whole-soul devotion to the Cause. The tenets of the oath are a verbalization of the internal conception of the Cause. And only the paladin themselves can judge their adherence (or lack there of) to that concept. However, being a good paladin also intrinsically requires the paladin to not be able to deceive themselves about the state of this. Any equivocation/internal conflict shatters their power. It's only the purity of purpose that allows them to out-stubborn the universe and actually do magical things. If they waver in that, they are at least in danger of falling.

Becoming Oathbreaker, on the other hand, goes way further than that. To become Oathbreaker it's not enough to doubt or even abandon your Cause--you have to utterly, intentionally forswear Causes and then seek to replace that (now missing) power by seeking out dark forces to fill the void. Personally, I would never have a PC become an Oathbreaker and stay in play as a PC. If a paladin rejects their Oath due to a conflict of ethics (or just no longer believing), I'd allow them to rebuild their character as a fighter at the same level. Or become a cleric (depending on the details of exactly why they fell). Or have them retire that character and bring in another. It'd all be a negotiation with that player, OOC.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

On discussion boards? Yes. In play? Not as I've seen it play out.
Me? I play warlocks from the ground up. (My only "dip" was to pick up 1 level of Fathomless Warlock as my last level in a 20 level campaign, and that was thematic: the deity/power I served was Leviathan, which was a deep ocean Power Of The World.

Seconded. The only time I've "Dipped" Warlock, which is to say, taken a few levels and never gone back, is the above mentioned Paladin. The original play and behavior style was based 100% on trying to make a Knight Radiant from Stormlight. So I looked at that, the core of Radiants is "Bond with a Spirit that can transform into a morphic magical weapon" and then the Windrunner ideals are heavily on defensive and protection. So ultimately I came to the conclusion I wanted to play a Crown Paladin but I wanted a partner spirit that could turn into literally any weapon. Queue 3 levels of Hexblade with the DM allowing my "Patron" to be said Spirit bound to me symbiotically.

But I wasn't out to be a Hexblade or dip that, I was out for a specific character concept and Warlock had the toolkit.

Mind you I do this with everything. I've taken Monk and Fighter and Rogue dips all over the place for specific abilities I wanted in what is otherwise a single class something else. I had a character I imagined as a low end Nate Gray/Jean Gray who ended up with 1 level of Aberrant Mind Sorcerer and 3 levels of Astral Monk before going full Eldritch Knight Fighter to reflavor it all as innate Telepathy and Telekinesis and him Telekinetically flinging around weapons without ever touching them with his hands. A lot of time mechanics are toolkits to make stuff the game doesn't actually have.


But that is NOT the case. My level 10 (almosst 11) Celestial is a single class, as was my Fey/Chain, as is my other Celestial (almost 6 in CoS campaign).

100% this. I've played multiple Warlocks other than the above mentioned Knight. Had an Efreeti Genie Lock get to level 19 almost single class (They started 1 level in Rogue for Skills and Expertise). Have a level 9 Fathomless that's bound to a Kraken that lives under his home village. And lastly have a currently only level 4 Celestial Warlock based entirely around being Cyclops from the X-Men. They will probably eventually dip 3 levels in Fighter to add Unarmed Combat, Medium Armor, Action Surge and Battle Master, but those to flavor the Warlock side, not to move away from Warlock entirely.


Yep. Fits the class description better.

I will 100% allow you to choose whichever casting stat you want for any class so long as you can sell it on me and I don't see a Balance issue. I've run tables with a Con based Sorcerer, I've run Int based Warlocks and an Int based Bard (Basing more on the original Bard which was Oratory to share history, laws and pass judgements, not entertain). I've also run a Wisdom Based Warlock using essentially the Battle Smith Artificer Subclass to represent a Forest Archer with a plant creature construct pet.

The Sorcerer was a tiny bit strong by nature of having really good HP and only rarely losing Concentration, but it didn't break anything.


That works well enough. (Although GOO is an outlier here).

Even GOO can work. They're alien, they have who knows WHAT purpose to what they're doing. The first two levels aren't so much the Warlock "proving" themselves so much as "Ah, Subject 8,376,492 has made it past Stage 1 of the experiment, we can now begin."

[LibraryOgre]

You know, if they switch to Boon @ 1 and Pact @ 3, it opens the option for a "pactless" warlock... someone who is more akin to a 3.x Binder.

[Joe the Rat]

The only thing I want to see is for all bladelocks have Cha(or whatever they use for casting) to hit/damage with their pact weapon. After that, just don't screw it up.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The only thing I want to see is for all bladelocks have Cha(or whatever they use for casting) to hit/damage with their pact weapon. After that, just don't screw it up.

See, I don't see that as automatically a good thing. I know the Hexblade is seen as great because it makes the Lock SAD (Well, you still need a 14 Dex for armor) but I don't know that that should be an expectation. Maybe an invocation?

The reality is, lots of classes are designed around one stat but can't rely on it for combat if they want to use weapons. Paladins need Str/Dex and Cha, Rangers need Str/Dex and Wis, Monks need Dex and Wis, Bards need Dex/Str and Charisma. It's really only the Artificer and Warlock (and one Monk subclass) that lean into deliberately making a class SAD.

I certainly have no problem with it, but I also don't see an issue with saying a Blade lock in general needs a physical stat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See, I don't see that as automatically a good thing. I know the Hexblade is seen as great because it makes the Lock SAD (Well, you still need a 14 Dex for armor) but I don't know that that should be an expectation. Maybe an invocation?

The reality is, lots of classes are designed around one stat but can't rely on it for combat if they want to use weapons. Paladins need Str/Dex and Cha, Rangers need Str/Dex and Wis, Monks need Dex and Wis, Bards need Dex/Str and Charisma. It's really only the Artificer and Warlock (and one Monk subclass) that lean into deliberately making a class SAD.

I certainly have no problem with it, but I also don't see an issue with saying a Blade lock in general needs a physical stat.

I strongly agree with this. Personally, I think that every class should be at least dual-stat dependent in some significant way. Other than CON. Something on the mold of 4e's model (or a modification of it):
1. Every class has a primary ability score. Possibly the choice of two.
2. Every class has a secondary ability score. If it only has one primary, it should have the choice of two secondaries. And vice versa.
3. Every class wants positive CON.

And the primary and secondary should be from separate groupings. So if your primary is STR, your secondary could be any of INT/WIS/CHA. And vice versa.

For example, you could make wizards require INT (primary) + [DEX|STR] (secondary, used for attack spells and some DCs? Maybe?). And having Warlocks require CHA | INT + DEX | STR would work just fine.

[Psyren]

You know, if they switch to Boon @ 1 and Pact @ 3, it opens the option for a "pactless" warlock... someone who is more akin to a 3.x Binder.

A pactless warlock in this context would probably be "I get minor powers from this object I found" - I think that's closer to the PF1 Occultist (the psychic/psychometric one) than the 3.5 Binder.

...Come to think of it, that opens the door to getting that concept without a dip at all, using some kind of "dabbler feat" instead akin to Artificer Initiate or Magic Initiate.


The only thing I want to see is for all bladelocks have Cha(or whatever they use for casting) to hit/damage with their pact weapon. After that, just don't screw it up.


See, I don't see that as automatically a good thing. I know the Hexblade is seen as great because it makes the Lock SAD (Well, you still need a 14 Dex for armor) but I don't know that that should be an expectation. Maybe an invocation?

The reality is, lots of classes are designed around one stat but can't rely on it for combat if they want to use weapons. Paladins need Str/Dex and Cha, Rangers need Str/Dex and Wis, Monks need Dex and Wis, Bards need Dex/Str and Charisma. It's really only the Artificer and Warlock (and one Monk subclass) that lean into deliberately making a class SAD.

I certainly have no problem with it, but I also don't see an issue with saying a Blade lock in general needs a physical stat.

I expect Hexblade will stay as the way to main route for Cha to hit/damage, but with it requiring 3 levels in Warlock instead of 1 it'll be a much more costly dip. This will also push Hexblade builds away from dumping their physical stats entirely since they'll need to survive those opening levels longer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I expect Hexblade will stay as the way to main route for Cha to hit/damage, but with it requiring 3 levels in Warlock instead of 1 it'll be a much more costly dip. This will also push Hexblade builds away from dumping their physical stats entirely since they'll need to survive those opening levels longer.

I'm...less than happy with split-brain things like this, where the value of stat allocations (which happen before level 1) change radically after level 1. It's less bad than giving armor proficiency post level 1 (since you now you need two armor stats instead of one or have to have crap AC OR crap speed early on), but it's still...less than elegant.

I'd prefer just not allowing mental stats to influence weapon damage/attack. Period. If you want weapons, you need physical stats. If you want spells, you need mental stats.

SAD is BAD, DAD[0] is GLAD[1].

[0] D for Dual
[1] BAD | GLAD aren't acronyms here, just going for symmetry and rhyme :smallbiggrin:

[Theodoxus]

I strongly agree with this. Personally, I think that every class should be at least dual-stat dependent in some significant way. Other than CON. Something on the mold of 4e's model (or a modification of it):
1. Every class has a primary ability score. Possibly the choice of two.
2. Every class has a secondary ability score. If it only has one primary, it should have the choice of two secondaries. And vice versa.
3. Every class wants positive CON.

And the primary and secondary should be from separate groupings. So if your primary is STR, your secondary could be any of INT/WIS/CHA. And vice versa.

For example, you could make wizards require INT (primary) + [DEX|STR] (secondary, used for attack spells and some DCs? Maybe?). And having Warlocks require CHA | INT + DEX | STR would work just fine.

That would be fantastic for something OSR, not really modern D&D. I've always liked the Unearthed Arcana stuff from 2nd Ed; skills and powers splitting out attributes; casters using multiple mental stats to enhance spells known or DCs or the like. But nowadays, everything is more streamlined such that SAD really means DAD because Con is and always will be a thing, and really the only truly DAD classes are Rogues and heavy armor Fighters, since they can concentrate on Dex or Str respectively. Everyone else either needs a casting stat and Dex or a casting stat and Str.

Even a theoretical Con casting class would only join the ranks of Rogues and heavy Fighters, as they'd still need Dex for AC.

I definitely think the sweet spot should be every class being a TAD. And I definitely miss the interplay of dyad attributes like 4th Ed had. I've said it before, I'll say it again, WotC threw out a lot of baby with that bathwater when they moved onto D&D Next. I know they were trying to run counter to most of what 4th Ed utilized, probably because they were uncertain as to what aspects were making it unpopular, but there were a lot of really good innovations that got squashed that I would love to see come back. In that respect, your idea is good, PP... I just don't see WotC going in that direction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In that respect, your idea is good, PP... I just don't see WotC going in that direction.

I don't expect WotC to go in that direction either. Because I don't expect WotC to do much that's actually sane. Instead I fully expect them to go further down the paths they've chosen, few of which are actually good, most are meh (neither good nor bad), and a decent chunk are just WTF.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

So, it's out now, so let's talk about the actual One D&D Warlock. This is just my casual review but wanted to get this topic going now that we have data.

Thoughts as I read it, If I don't mention something likely it just didn't change from 5e:

Casting open to any of the three mental stats: This is great and I think we talked about it. Reality is that a powerful being might look for different skills or aptitudes in a minion. On the side this does open them even further to MultiClassing, but #1 I never thought that was bad and #2 other things tweak this. We'll get to those.

Pact Boon: At level 1 aside from the actual choice of Blade/Tome/Chain you also now always have Eldritch Blast and Hex on your spell list. So if you always look at it as a "Tax" tax is gone. As for the actual boons, they're now spells you always have prepared. I'll talk about them in the Spells section lower.

Pact Magic: No more only your highest slots on a SR, you are a half caster and recover on a Long Rest. You are a full out half caster so I'm not sure how this will impact overall but it's definitely a bit weaker there since you no longer have spell slot access similar to a full caster.

Invocations/Mystic Arcanum: The Good news, you get 9 across your leveling instead of 7. The bad news, Mystic Arcanum is now a Invocation, not it's own thing, so technically you're down 2 in practical terms (7 Invocations + 4 Mystic Arcanum vs 9 total Invocations).
All the Invocations that gave you a spell are gone. Instead Mystic Arcanum is a repeatable invocation with a max level based on the level you take it at that grants you a single arcane spell and the ability to cast it once without a slot per long rest. Ultimately it can easily replace Mystic Arcanum if taken at later levels. Also of note, there aren't that many Boon Specifics, one for each boon available at 9th level, so 2 less choices overall, but less Boon Taxes as well. The others are mostly in line with 5e but I give props to Beguiling Influence which now is replaced with "Lessons of the First Ones" Which lets you pick any level 1 feat that doesn't have prereqs (Which can be Skilled if you want the old effect).

Contact Patron: You get Commune with Other Plane for free, cast for free once per Long Rest with an auto success on your saving throw. Nice little flavor to always have Patron on speed dial.

Hex Master: Nice ribbon at level 18, you now can cast Hex at will with no slot usage.

Now for the spell changes that affect a warlock most. IE Eldritch Blast and the Boon Spells.

Eldritch Blast: This spell is 90% unchanged, however, it now upgrades extra beams based exclusively on your Warlock level, so doing a 2 level dip and then walking away is no longer an option. Can see this as a con to some but largely in line with trying to prevent the class being an add on dip vs an actual class.

Book of Shadows replaces the old Pact of the Tome boon. It is a Cantrip with a 1 hour casting time that creates the book with 2 Cantrips and 2 Ritual Spells of your choice, since the Cantrip is recastable you have more flexibility in choice here. It also acts as a Spell focus and lastly, at level 5 it lets you add your casting stat to cantrip damage if you don't already do so. Meaning Agonizing blast is no longer a tax for a Tomelock. In general this seems an improvement.

Pact Familiar: Removes Material for spell cost and is a Cantrip. It has a standardized stat block and some more combat utility. It is invisible at will and has an attack of variable damage types that does 2-12 depending on your warlock level. At level 5 you can telepathically talk with it and speak through it anywhere on the same plane.

Pact Weapon: Full improvement, It is a Cantrip that can make any weapon without the Heavy property and grants you attack and damage off your caster stat, proficiency and returning weapon properties, you can also use the cantrip on an existing magic weapon with the same benefits. At level 5 you get Extra Attack but only with your pact weapon.

All in all, I think it's mostly an improvement and I'm getting ready to play a Warlock in a D&D game, think I'll ask the DM to let me playtest this guy instead of the old one. The only serious concern I have is will the Lock feel weaker with spells level 2-5 delayed significantly.

[Segev]

I'm not sure how I feel about the invocations and boons being made into cantrips. Why is the pact familiar spell a cantrip and find familiar still a first level spell, too? Mixed feelings on the templated unique familiars rather than them using existing creatures. The more they make PC mechanics wholly separate from NPC mechanics, the less it feels like the PCs are actually part of the world.

I sincerely dislike eldritch blast (uniquely amongst cantrips) advancing only by warlock levels. I think the uniqueness of invocation investment was more than enough to keep it a warlock signature.

I like the blade pact mechanics being everything they need to be in one package rather than having to take an invocation, a boon, and a patron to make it work at all.

[Psyren]

Well, I was wrong about Pact Weapon (you can still dip Warlock for Cha to attack/damage now, and can do so for Wis to attack/damage even - goodbye Shillelagh!) But honestly I don't mind. In some ways this is a buff, since you're not locked into a single Patron to access this kind of ability on your gish build. And in others its a nerf, because Warlock is a half-caster now, so if you're say a Paladin there's less incentive to keep progressing with Warlock rather than sticking with your own casting. With that said though, at least you don't have a separate set of pact slots to keep track of now either.


I'm not sure how I feel about the invocations and boons being made into cantrips. Why is the pact familiar spell a cantrip and find familiar still a first level spell, too?

Because the former is a Source spell and therefore it can only be cast by that specific Pact Boon, i.e. by dipping Warlock, and furthermore will only scale with Warlock levels. Find Familiar meanwhile is an Arcane spell that can be grabbed by anyone (including via feat if necessary) and scales with your spellcasting no matter what you are. Basically if you're going straight warlock the Pact Familiar is superior, but if you're doing anything else including multiclassing, you may want to stick with the regular familiar.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm not sure how I feel about the invocations and boons being made into cantrips. Why is the pact familiar spell a cantrip and find familiar still a first level spell, too? Mixed feelings on the templated unique familiars rather than them using existing creatures. The more they make PC mechanics wholly separate from NPC mechanics, the less it feels like the PCs are actually part of the world.

It essentially makes the Chain a pet for a Chainlock that's always available, encouraging them to use it a bit more, vs the Wizard's Familiar remains more frail and needs to be careful due to cost to repeat it. I don't think I'll dive into the PC separated from NPC issue, we don't agree there, not much more to say. I don't see the issue because the flavor, fluff and world is what makes me feel connected to the game, not rather or not my Pseudodragon acts exactly the same as the NPC one we encountered.


I sincerely dislike eldritch blast (uniquely amongst cantrips) advancing only by warlock levels. I think the uniqueness of invocation investment was more than enough to keep it a warlock signature.

I'm neutral on this one, but you were okay with the whole "I just dip Warlock for 2 levels or 1 level and use a feat and voiloi"? I thought one of the biggest discussions was about how we didn't want the Lock to feel like a boost or add on but be it's own thing you wanted to stay with.


I like the blade pact mechanics being everything they need to be in one package rather than having to take an invocation, a boon, and a patron to make it work at all.

I 100% like the Pact Boon. I do wonder at and dislike it blocking off certain weapons, but that's a minor thing and I can fix it at my table, will leave the feedback for WotC though.

[Hurrashane]

I kinda dig the level 1 pact stuff. Like it sells it for Multiclassing. As a wizard you make a pact for more magical knowledge and bam, book of shadows. A paladin makes an agreement with an angel to destroy fiends, boom! Cha weapon! Also with it being a half caster it helps out multiclass spellcasting inna different way than before.

I wouldn't mind if they made a feat that granted the level 1 pact feature. Really help with the, "I made a bargain for more power" vibe.

[Segev]

It essentially makes the Chain a pet for a Chainlock that's always available, encouraging them to use it a bit more, vs the Wizard's Familiar remains more frail and needs to be careful due to cost to repeat it. I don't think I'll dive into the PC separated from NPC issue, we don't agree there, not much more to say. I don't see the issue because the flavor, fluff and world is what makes me feel connected to the game, not rather or not my Pseudodragon acts exactly the same as the NPC one we encountered.The more the mechanics don't match the fluff, the less the fluff feels real to me. And that's the problem with PCs using entirely different mechanics for the allegedly same things that NPCs get. The fluff says these are both pseudodragons. The mechanics say that my pseudodragon is uniquely different - and, generally speaking with these kinds of "PCs don't get things because they're too game-breaking if they do" mechanics - weaker than the real thing. But even if it were uniquely stronger, if it doesn't use the non-PC pseudodragon as a base, it isn't the same creature. And this is noticeable. It's one thing if That Specific Pseudodragon can do something my PC's pseudodragon cannot; maybe it's unique, has special training, or is a variant race of pseudodragon. It's another when every pseudodragon can do this thing except for mine. And it doesn't matter if overall my pseudodragon is better; if the variation between my pseudodragon and the real ones is great enough that I can't just use a real pseudodragon and buff it to get it tough enough to play at the appropriate level, it is noticeably not actually a pseudodragon. My PC isn't really part of the world; my PC is an alien thing that is injecting itself into the world.


I'm neutral on this one, but you were okay with the whole "I just dip Warlock for 2 levels or 1 level and use a feat and voiloi"? I thought one of the biggest discussions was about how we didn't want the Lock to feel like a boost or add on but be it's own thing you wanted to stay with.I never saw this as a problem, no. Warlock being a "boost" was almost always more about the way its mechanics complemented paladin or sorcerer, not about eldritch blast, and I do not think that the change to eldritch blast would stop dips. They'd need to actually change the mechanics that were the real complements, and I...don't think they have? I did not read it in enough depth to be sure, in that I didn't look for it. But pact magic still is its own thing, right? It still comes back on short rests? Now the Palock and the Sorlock have a dead weight feature in getting eldritch blast for free but having no reason to use it as it won't scale up, but since getting eldritch blast for free is a pure buff and not something Warlocks traded some other cool thing for (and this is fine; I think it's okay to give them that for free...though personally I'd rather they get +1 cantrip known over 5.0 and still have the option of buying eldritch blast or not with it), so it's not like it makes the splash less attractive than it was. It just makes eldritch blast not what they'll spend their invocations on when they take the dip. Assuming they would have picked up eldritch blast at all.

[Hurrashane]

The fluff says these are both pseudodragons. The mechanics say that my pseudodragon is uniquely different

Well, yeah. They're different Pseudodragons. At least with the pact familiar one that one is made of magic.

[Lavaeolus]

But pact magic still is its own thing, right? It still comes back on short rests?

Pact Magic is gone. Warlocks get standard half-caster spell slot progression and recharge on long rests.

[DarknessEternal]

They managed to make Warlocks substantially worse. That took a lot of effort.

Half caster is laughably worse than pact magic.

[Joe the Rat]

Alllllrighty.

First of all, I overall like the way they are cleaning up classes, and in the case of Warlock, Invocations. Mystic Arcanum replaces all of the "cast this once per long rest" invocations, and makes it "prepared" if you happen to have the appropriate slots. It makes Warlock advancement mainly Invocation/Feat/Invocation/Subclass/Invocation/Feat/etc., which really emphasizes how the nature of your Warlock depends a great deal on how you chose to build it. Making your Patron spells auto-prepped a la Domain spells puts more of that feel into the magic... and oh body am I going to have fun with Genies in the future. It also leaves some room to violate the [class] spell options - they could put the (apparently) Bard-only dissonant whispers on the Old One Lock list.

Regarding the Pacts: I'm a fan of the flex stats, and I like the theme of tying your choices to your pact, but there's part of me that will miss Charisma Tomelock. The possibility of not having save proficiency in your Primary Casting Stat is kind of funny. I like that most of the old Pact Invocation Taxes get folded into the Pact cantrips. Also, Tomelocks don't need Agonizing Blast past 5th ...and get Agonizing sacred flame or vicious mockery or whatever as part of the deal.

Making all Mystic Arcanum - including the up-level casting you'd get on a 5e 'lock - into Invocations centralizes the mechanic (Spell with One Free Casting per Long Rest), but this also means it's an Invocation Tax if you wanted to keep the old 'lock progression. Having One Entire Extra Invocation and removing the pact invocaion taxes frees up some room, but you're gaining two invocation slots (more or less) to cover four "invocations" they had otherwise. Mind, if you don't want eyebite or psychic scream or chain lightning, that's more room to play.

The All Warlocks Spell Package is kind of meh for me, but that's because I rarely used Hex (there are better uses for concentration before 5th 9th), and I made a mission out of doing viable blastless Warlocks. You say Spell Tax, I say Window of Opportunity. The fact that that this makes eldritch blast and hex Warlock only is nifty, as it requires ...one level of a class that can use whatever mental casting stat you like and still contributes a half level to your other casting... to gain access. Beamspam being linked to Warlock levels is a wee bit of a cludge, and does lower the value as a dip. But you will be better with hex than Warlocks, since you can get the higher-level castings (with extended duration and increased damage) faster on a full caster.

Which brings me to the Big Change: Half Caster instead of Pact Magic. Personally, I am not a fan, but this is a preference, not a statement on power and utility. I like that Pact Magic was odd. auto-upcast, short rest bundles of arcane WHOMP. Only having two slots per SHORT rest for most of your career was limiting, but I don't think 15 slots of varying levels per LONG rest (at max level) was necessarily the only solution. I'd have tried Proficiency Bonus Pact Slots first, or made Short Rest feel less like a time sink. Or both. Both is good. I think they got fixated on "Slots to 5" and went with this.

But I really think this is leaning towards a decrease in utility. Besides giving them fewer spell slots per day until 5th level (assuming the Two Rest model), your entire run is at lower power - Warlocks don't get 8-Hour Extended Damage Hex, and can't fly or hunger of hadar at all until 9th level now. Also note that with the once-per-turn damage limit, your hex+eldritch blast spamming lost (hit rate)*1d6 necrotic damage per turn between 5th and 9th level. This may be an overall increase long-term, since the full hex impact only requires one hit.

[Psyren]

Half caster is laughably worse than pact magic.

It's not though? Now Warlocks can use things like Shield or Counterspell without either being gimped or needing to stop the entire party for an hour. They multiclass a lot more elegantly now too. I think they could use a buff on the invocation front but overall I like this change.

[Segev]

Well, yeah. They're different Pseudodragons. At least with the pact familiar one that one is made of magic.Wait, is the argument for why the PC having different mechanics than the NPC:

It's okay because even though they're mechanically different, the fluff says they're the same, and therefore PCs still are part of the setting, or
It's okay because they're NOT the same creature?

Because you can't have it both ways. I agree that the second bullet is actually the truth: they're not the same creature. But that isn't okay. That's the problem. The PC is emphasized as being not a part of the setting, being an outsider to it that kind-of/sort-of pretends to have a place in the setting.


Pact Magic is gone. Warlocks get standard half-caster spell slot progression and recharge on long rests.Ugh. That is awful. Yes, let's make classes LESS unique from each other.

This shouldn't surprise me, honestly; making things more homogenous is a major theme in all of my problems with 4eOneD&D.

[Psyren]

Wait, is the argument for why the PC having different mechanics than the NPC:

It's okay because even though they're mechanically different, the fluff says they're the same, and therefore PCs still are part of the setting, or
It's okay because they're NOT the same creature?

Because you can't have it both ways.

Why does them having any differences mean they're not part of the same setting? Are all humans or dogs the same?

[OvisCaedo]

Why does them having any differences mean they're not part of the same setting? Are all humans or dogs the same?

Apparently, yes, until one of them is or belongs to a PC. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It does often feel silly when the PC version of something lacks a feature that, apparently, all wild or NPC versions of it universally have.

A familiar from the spell isn't a real creature, though, so I think it has a lot more leeway to have notable differences from what it's imitating.


On the subject of Warlock directly... I really do not like the half-caster/mystic arcanum solution they settled on. If they want this route instead of pact magic, I think I'd rather see Warlocks have full caster progression that just stops at 5th level spells, and mystic arcanum working closer to how it was before.

[Segev]

Apparently, yes, until one of them is or belongs to a PC. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It does often feel silly when the PC version of something lacks a feature that, apparently, all wild or NPC versions of it universally have.

A familiar from the spell isn't a real creature, though, so I think it has a lot more leeway to have notable differences from what it's imitating.

"Well, it's not the real thing," is fine fluff...but why is every PC version "not the real thing," while nobody else has that issue?

It must not be a small thing, because if it were, nobody would be pushing back against my objections so strenuously. After all, if it were a small thing, there'd be no big deal sticking with the superior 5.0 method of just using the actual creatures.

If these "magical things" were not trying to immitate something that exists in the setting, that'd be one thing. Or if there was some fluff, plot, or other reason why these magical immitations are things. But...they're not, and there isn't, except for the doylist explanation of "PCs use different mechanics...and maybe we'll bother having an excuse for it."

Either PCs get to play in the world or they don't. And OneD&D is determining they don't. Otherwise, it wouldn't be trying to give PCs a different version of "a dog" than the world has outside of PC control.

[Hurrashane]

Wait, is the argument for why the PC having different mechanics than the NPC:

It's okay because even though they're mechanically different, the fluff says they're the same, and therefore PCs still are part of the setting, or
It's okay because they're NOT the same creature?

Because you can't have it both ways. I agree that the second bullet is actually the truth: they're not the same creature. But that isn't okay. That's the problem. The PC is emphasized as being not a part of the setting, being an outsider to it that kind-of/sort-of pretends to have a place in the setting.



The two pseudodragons are different creatures. A PCs Pseudodragon familiar isn't that specific Pseudodragon NPC. But they're still both Pseudodragons. It's described as a Pseudodragon so it is one, any deviations from what normal pseudodragons are like can be explained away easily enough.

Like, if there's two level 1 PC fighters and they're different do you decry one as not being a fighter?

I asked this before in another thread, at what point (in your mind) does changing the stat block make a creature cease being that creature? Like, if I have two wolf NPC blocks and I make one have more HP and better attack and saves does it cease to be a wolf? If I take a wolf block and decide, as the DM, that I don't think wolves should get pack tactics or a trip... Does it stop being a wolf? If I took the wolf stat block, gave it a language and said it was a humanoid who uses tripping attack... Is it still a wolf? The answer in my mind is wolf, wolf, humanoid.

[Segev]

The two pseudodragons are different creatures. A PCs Pseudodragon familiar isn't that specific Pseudodragon NPC. But they're still both Pseudodragons. It's described as a Pseudodragon so it is one, any deviations from what normal pseudodragons are like can be explained away easily enough.

Like, if there's two level 1 PC fighters and they're different do you decry one as not being a fighter?

I asked this before in another thread, at what point (in your mind) does changing the stat block make a creature cease being that creature? Like, if I have two wolf NPC blocks and I make one have more HP and better attack and saves does it cease to be a wolf? If I take a wolf block and decide, as the DM, that I don't think wolves should get pack tactics or a trip... Does it stop being a wolf? If I took the wolf stat block, gave it a language and said it was a humanoid who uses tripping attack... Is it still a wolf? The answer in my mind is wolf, wolf, humanoid.

At the point where every pseudodragon other than the one that my PC has access to is able to do certain things.

My PC isn't really turning into a wolf if all that changes is what my PC looks like. My PC isn't really turning into a wolf if wolves have pack tactics and bite attacks, and my "wolf" has a generic slam attack and a climb speed.

If you, the DM, change wolves such that they do not have pack tactics, then wolves in your campaign do not have pack tactics. The problem isn't "the specific stat block," it's where and why this wolf has this stat block and that wolf has a completely different stat block. And it's very, very clear that the dividing line is, "is a PC controlling it? Then it gets this generic blob of stats that you pretend is a number of different things that it doesn't quite match."

[Hurrashane]

At the point where every pseudodragon other than the one that my PC has access to is able to do certain things.

My PC isn't really turning into a wolf if all that changes is what my PC looks like. My PC isn't really turning into a wolf if wolves have pack tactics and bite attacks, and my "wolf" has a generic slam attack and a climb speed.

If you, the DM, change wolves such that they do not have pack tactics, then wolves in your campaign do not have pack tactics. The problem isn't "the specific stat block," it's where and why this wolf has this stat block and that wolf has a completely different stat block. And it's very, very clear that the dividing line is, "is a PC controlling it? Then it gets this generic blob of stats that you pretend is a number of different things that it doesn't quite match."

Have you checked every Pseudodragon in the campaign world? How do you know that only yours is different? And yours has access to different things because it's a familiar.

Does your PC have a lifetime of being a wolf in a pack to know how to best use it's bite and work in concert with other wolves? (Honestly pack tactics should only work with other creatures who have pack tactics.)

Most of the "generic blobs" are a creation of magic so yeah, I expect them to be different from normal whatevers. Like, the where and why this stat block is different is pretty clearly spelled out in most of their descriptions; it's a familiar, it's some form of nature spirit, it's a magical shape change, etc. Like it's a bit silly to be like, "I have created this being of magic which is entirely the same as every other creature of it's ilk, also it has all the instincts and knowledge of one that grew up in it's natural environment despite only coming into existence seconds ago!" Like, what?

[Psyren]

Apparently, yes, until one of them is or belongs to a PC. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It does often feel silly when the PC version of something lacks a feature that, apparently, all wild or NPC versions of it universally have.

I don't see it as silly at all, D&D has been doing this forever. A Paladin's mount in 3e was very different from even a trained warhorse, including when you first get it.



On the subject of Warlock directly... I really do not like the half-caster/mystic arcanum solution they settled on. If they want this route instead of pact magic, I think I'd rather see Warlocks have full caster progression that just stops at 5th level spells, and mystic arcanum working closer to how it was before.

I for one like this approach because it more definitively answers the difference between deities and patrons. The latter are truly less powerful, though thanks to Mystic Arcana, not that far apart.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

They managed to make Warlocks substantially worse. That took a lot of effort.

Half caster is laughably worse than pact magic.

I thought that too until I read closer. to quote from the other thread when it comes to Spell casting:
Spells: For this looking at just the 1-5 casting both get assuming optimal short rests planned (IE 2)
5e Cantrips: 2-4
1DND Cantrips: 3-5

5e Spell Slots: 3/0/0/0/0 to 0/0/0/0/12. With access to new Spell levels as 3, 5, 7, 9.
1DND Spell Slots: 2/0/0/0/0 to 5/4/4/4/3. With access to new spell levels at 5, 9, 13, 17

5e Spells Known: 2-15
1DND Spells Known: 3-26

Ultimately the 5e Warlock gets more power but more limited usage of it and quicker access (Without invocations). However the 1DND has more spell slots, more spells known and more flexibility.

That's JUST the spellcasting, the reality is you can use Mystic Arcanum to add spells along the way and keep access the gap becomes even smaller. If you want to be a Caster let's look at the actual comparison. Let's look at levels 5, 9,15, and 17.

5th Level:
5e Cantrips: 3 vs 1DND Cantrips: 4
Spells Known: 5e 6 spells known vs 1DND 12 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/2/0/0/0/0/0/0 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/3/1/0/0/0/0/0/0 on a Long Rest.

Less 3rd level spells, more spells overall and more flexibility and options to 1DND.

9th Level:
5e Cantrips: 3 vs 1DND Cantrips: 4
Spells Known: 5e 10 spells known vs 1DND 18 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/0/0/2/0/0/0/0 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/4/3/1/1/0/0/0/0 on a Long Rest.

At this point while the 5e has more raw power the number of overall spells and flexibility is swinging WAY away from 5e in favor of 1DND.

15th Level:
5e Cantrips: 4 vs 1DND Cantrips: 5
Spells Known: 5e 16 spells known vs 1DND 25 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/0/0/3/1/1/1/0 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/4/4/3/1/1/1/1/0 on a Long Rest.

Again, 5e has more raw power but not near the flexibility that 1DND has. And that's only level 1-5, levels' 6-8 they are tied.

17th level:
5e Cantrips: 4 vs 1DND Cantrips: 5
Spells Known: 5e 18 spells known vs 1DND 29 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/0/0/4/1/1/1/1 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/4/4/4/2/1/1/1/1 on a Long Rest.

The gap is gone, 5e might have a few more 5th level spells, but they're the same for 6+ and the level of flexibility and lower level spells the 1DND warlock has dwarfs 5e. That's without pointing out that Invocations are better and Pact Boon is better.


Wait, is the argument for why the PC having different mechanics than the NPC:

It's okay because even though they're mechanically different, the fluff says they're the same, and therefore PCs still are part of the setting, or
It's okay because they're NOT the same creature?

Because you can't have it both ways. I agree that the second bullet is actually the truth: they're not the same creature. But that isn't okay. That's the problem. The PC is emphasized as being not a part of the setting, being an outsider to it that kind-of/sort-of pretends to have a place in the setting..

To be clear, that's two separate people disagreeing with you for different reasons. I don't care that mechanics work slightly different, I know you do. I'm not really pushing that argument other than to share my thoughts. I've NEVER cared that something is mechanically different because the lore and fluff and roleplay is more important to me. My highest level character, as I've mentioned, is on paper a Fire Genasi Rogue 1/Efreeti Genie Tomelock 18. In fluff and roleplay he is 100% an Efreeti, mechanically he can't grant 3 or unlimited wishes, he can do 1 real wish a day and 1 smaller wish every 1d4 days and a host of other things. His hurl flame is a force blast with some added fire. He is not size Large, doesn't have Conjure Elemental. And at the end of the day? Who cares. I roleplay him as an Efreeti, the DM treats me like an efreeti and the idea that because I am mechanically different that's some type of glaring shift is something I just don't see. I understand you do.

[ZRN]

I thought that too until I read closer. to quote from the other thread when it comes to Spell casting:
Spells: For this looking at just the 1-5 casting both get assuming optimal short rests planned (IE 2)
5e Cantrips: 2-4
1DND Cantrips: 3-5

5e Spell Slots: 3/0/0/0/0 to 0/0/0/0/12. With access to new Spell levels as 3, 5, 7, 9.
1DND Spell Slots: 2/0/0/0/0 to 5/4/4/4/3. With access to new spell levels at 5, 9, 13, 17

5e Spells Known: 2-15
1DND Spells Known: 3-26

Ultimately the 5e Warlock gets more power but more limited usage of it and quicker access (Without invocations). However the 1DND has more spell slots, more spells known and more flexibility.

That's JUST the spellcasting, the reality is you can use Mystic Arcanum to add spells along the way and keep access the gap becomes even smaller. If you want to be a Caster let's look at the actual comparison. Let's look at levels 5, 9,15, and 17.

5th Level:
5e Cantrips: 3 vs 1DND Cantrips: 4
Spells Known: 5e 6 spells known vs 1DND 12 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/2/0/0/0/0/0/0 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/3/1/0/0/0/0/0/0 on a Long Rest.

Less 3rd level spells, more spells overall and more flexibility and options to 1DND.

9th Level:
5e Cantrips: 3 vs 1DND Cantrips: 4
Spells Known: 5e 10 spells known vs 1DND 18 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/0/0/2/0/0/0/0 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/4/3/1/1/0/0/0/0 on a Long Rest.

At this point while the 5e has more raw power the number of overall spells and flexibility is swinging WAY away from 5e in favor of 1DND.

15th Level:
5e Cantrips: 4 vs 1DND Cantrips: 5
Spells Known: 5e 16 spells known vs 1DND 25 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/0/0/3/1/1/1/0 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/4/4/3/1/1/1/1/0 on a Long Rest.

Again, 5e has more raw power but not near the flexibility that 1DND has. And that's only level 1-5, levels' 6-8 they are tied.

17th level:
5e Cantrips: 4 vs 1DND Cantrips: 5
Spells Known: 5e 18 spells known vs 1DND 29 Spells Known.
Spell Slots: 5e 0/0/0/0/4/1/1/1/1 on a Short Rest. vs 1DND 5/4/4/4/2/1/1/1/1 on a Long Rest.

The gap is gone, 5e might have a few more 5th level spells, but they're the same for 6+ and the level of flexibility and lower level spells the 1DND warlock has dwarfs 5e. That's without pointing out that Invocations are better and Pact Boon is better.

The 1DND warlock is probably a reasonably balanced class overall (haven't tested obviously) but the role of its spells has shifted dramatically. Count spell slots all you want, at level 5 having two fireballs (or whatever) per short rest is a very different play experience than having a half-dozen level 1 and 2 slots for the day. And we're not even mentioning that they completely flattened the texture of the spell list - you don't have cool and creepy spells, you're just a crappier wizard when it comes to spellcasting.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The 1DND warlock is probably a reasonably balanced class overall (haven't tested obviously) but the role of its spells has shifted dramatically. Count spell slots all you want, at level 5 having two fireballs (or whatever) per short rest is a very different play experience than having a half-dozen level 1 and 2 slots for the day. And we're not even mentioning that they completely flattened the texture of the spell list - you don't have cool and creepy spells, you're just a crappier wizard when it comes to spellcasting.

You had a Warlock cast Fireball? Playing a 5e Warlock meant obsessing over which spells upcast well and have Massive impacts on a full battle because realistically you can afford one spell per combat then spam Eldritch Blast.

The 1DND gives you the ability to consider Shield, Invisibility, other utility and saving options that aren't eclipsed because you're wasting a 5th level slot on them.

On to of that, while a Wizard has access to 2nd level + Rituals, the Tomelock has access to ALL 1st level Rituals, making them a better generalist than the Wizard in a lot of ways. The same thing is true for Cantrips, access to every Cantrip in the game gives tons of ability beyond "I can cast Fireball a lot."

No one is arguing that the 5e Warlock has more raw power in a singular moment. But the idea that the 1DND is weaker when it has more spell slots and more than 50% more spells.

[LibraryOgre]

TBH, I thought Pact Magic should have been their preference going forward; powerful magics that reset at a short rest.

[Jerrykhor]

The problem with the new warlock changes is that it made certain Invocations that was once a bit weak before (but still has a purpose), now become next to useless. I'm looking at you, Armor of Shadows.

And if the new Hexblade does not give Shield Proficiency, a melee Blade Lock would be in an awkward build since it cannot use Two-Handed weapons (since all but Great Club are Heavy), so that means they are forced to wield 1 handed weapons without shields. But Flex also made Versatile pointless, so....

[Pixel_Kitsune]

The problem with the new warlock changes is that it made certain Invocations that was once a bit weak before (but still has a purpose), now become next to useless. I'm looking at you, Armor of Shadows.

And if the new Hexblade does not give Shield Proficiency, a melee Blade Lock would be in an awkward build since it cannot use Two-Handed weapons (since all but Great Club are Heavy), so that means they are forced to wield 1 handed weapons without shields. But Flex also made Versatile pointless, so....

Disagree for the most part. Armor of Shadows was always useless, it didn't have a Niche, there was always a better choice. I do agree and hope for a Shield Prof some place, I also want Heavy weapons, but the argument you made is a bit off. Flex is a Mastery, which means you have to either dip into Fighter or the like, which gives Shield anyway, or spend a Feat at level 4. There are so many more valuable things to spend a Feat on than a single die increase of damage.

[Psyren]

TBH, I thought Pact Magic should have been their preference going forward; powerful magics that reset at a short rest.

I think part of the problem is they can't guarantee how many resources short rest classes will have, wich makes them very inconsistent from table to table. For a secondary resource like Bardic Inspiration and Second Wind that's not too bad, but for a primary resource it's tricky.

We'll have to see what they do with the Monk to really judge though.

[LibraryOgre]

I think part of the problem is they can't guarantee how many resources short rest classes will have, wich makes them very inconsistent from table to table. For a secondary resource like Bardic Inspiration and Second Wind that's not too bad, but for a primary resource it's tricky.


Oh, no, I meant EVERYONE is on short rest mechanics. Wizards. Fighters. Clerics. Monsters.

[MoiMagnus]

I think part of the problem is they can't guarantee how many resources short rest classes will have, wich makes them very inconsistent from table to table. For a secondary resource like Bardic Inspiration and Second Wind that's not too bad, but for a primary resource it's tricky.

We'll have to see what they do with the Monk to really judge though.

I disagree with the presupposition that the amount of resources long rest classes have is not widely inconsistent from table to table.

You just need to look at how many new GMs struggle with 5min workdays.

The only difference is that messing up long rest resources usually ends up with them being OP, which is easily noticed by the GM , while messing up short resources usually end up with them being frustratingly useless, which the GM might not notice.

But I guess it's true that homogeneity among casters will make things easier to balance. It's just kind of a sad solution.

(Though outside of this change to long rest casting, I quite like most of the other changes)

[Telok]

Personally I like pact magic for counterspelling. Getting slots back on short rests meant never feeling like they were wasted or a bad idea. Going half caster feels... weird. Like you should mostly choose the best low level debuffs & utility spells (like everyone else) because you can't do anything really different from a castrated sorcerer except a few exclusive cantrips like EB. Oh, and you might have one more points of ac.

[Marcloure]

The issue I have with the current Warlock is that it is an almost as good archer that is still a pretty good caster, specially after the 10th level. Making it a half caster makes it a less powerful caster, which is more balanced with other bow builds (really, the warlock is basically a Bow Fighter with spells). Problem with that is that few folks like to play a character who can do a bit of everything but it's not good in anything, which puts the Warlock in a strange spot...

[Psyren]

Oh, no, I meant EVERYONE is on short rest mechanics. Wizards. Fighters. Clerics. Monsters.

Right - for secondary resources like I said. Things like Channel and Arcane Recovery and Action Surge are fine as 1/SR because even if you don't get a short rest or get it on irregular timing or whatnot, and have to do without them, your class doesn't feel all that much weaker. But if you did the same to a Warlock or Monk they'd feel practically crippled / be in ration mode, possibly even just after a single fight.


I disagree with the presupposition that the amount of resources long rest classes have is not widely inconsistent from table to table.

You just need to look at how many new GMs struggle with 5min workdays.

The only difference is that messing up long rest resources usually ends up with them being OP, which is easily noticed by the GM , while messing up short resources usually end up with them being frustratingly useless, which the GM might not notice.

It doesn't sound like we disagree (on this part at least.)

[Bane's Wolf]

The issue I have with the current Warlock is that it is an almost as good archer that is still a pretty good caster, specially after the 10th level. Making it a half caster makes it a less powerful caster, which is more balanced with other bow builds (really, the warlock is basically a Bow Fighter with spells). Problem with that is that few folks like to play a character who can do a bit of everything but it's not good in anything, which puts the Warlock in a strange spot...

Personally, i would have simply made the Warlock a Full caster and been done with it, but that would have to be balanced against other Full casters, and we'd likely lose a lot of the cool Invocations.
After a chat with a friend about it, i've come around on this new Warlock.

I understand that it feels less powerful, but i don't think that is necessarily the case.

The running joke that the Warlock "sold his soul for a 1d12+CHA cantrip" kinda makes my point, i think.

"Old" Warlock had 2 spell slots, and even though they came back on a short rest, you could never cast more than those 2 in a single combat (until level 11, when you had 3?)
This meant that you had to optimize the hell out of those 2 spells. Pick spells that upcast well, or hoard them until you had the perfect moment. Using a spell slot for Hex, or Shield, felt like an absolute waste.
You needed a lot of system mastery to optimize your warlock spells, or you had to just Eldritch Blast your way through every fight.


"New" Warlock makes life a little easier by simply giving you more low level spell slots.
The half-caster progression fits better with other spellcasters rules, with regards to multiclassing.

And, for those who still want early access to higher level spells, Mystic Arcanum allows you to grab a spell at an earlier level than a half caster can access. Granted, it's not 2 5th level spells, but it's at least one 5th level spell by level 9 (same time as a full caster), while you also have a selection of lower level spells and the slots to cast them in.
And the 1d12+CHA (or INT or WIS) attack cantrip :smallwink:

I think, as it stands now, i could create a half-caster combat warlock, with a bunch of cool Invocations.

I could also create, with enough system mastery, a Warlock that emulates a full caster by using Mystic arcana early, and then swapping them out for higher level Mystic arcana as my spell slots catch up.
And still have plenty of eldritch Invocations left to flavour my Warlock

I think i like this change :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

Pact magic was deliberately set up to provide a different dynamic. Its all or nothing, and in return you recover it much faster. You make different choices and decisions than the vancian levelled slot approach. Its a different set of pros and cons, thats the point.

And you also have invocations and better than average cantrips for those famine tomes between feasts.

This UA Warlock is just a step removed from the Artificer, a wizard that sacrifices a chunk of their spellcasting progression in order to get a sturdier chassis and a selection of features.
Which isnt bad, it works. But I protest the loss of variety. Magic that comes back on a short rest is cool. Magic that automatically scales is cool. Thats the kind of stuff i'd like to see the devs take and run with, rather than dump. Id like to see their dev notes on this one.

[Mastikator]

To be honest I don't entirely like the short rest mechanic on pact magic, but I'm not entirely thrilled about warlocks being half casters.

Pros:

Warlocks can cast way more spells
Warlocks do not feel bad about casting non-scaling spells like shield
Multiclassing with another spellcasting class delays your spellcasting progression less
One fewer mechanical quirk is less confusing for newer players
Warlocks jive better with other classes who do not need short rests



Cons:

Having a different mechanic for warlocks made them feel more unique
It just feels icky?

[Gignere]

To be honest I don't entirely like the short rest mechanic on pact magic, but I'm not entirely thrilled about warlocks being half casters.

Pros:

Warlocks can cast way more spells
Warlocks do not feel bad about casting non-scaling spells like shield
Multiclassing with another spellcasting class delays your spellcasting progression less
One fewer mechanical quirk is less confusing for newer players
Warlocks jive better with other classes who do not need short rests



Cons:

Having a different mechanic for warlocks made them feel more unique
It just feels icky?


Personally I think this is a positive change maybe it’s my luck but the only warlocks I’d ever played with or DMed were dips or they all rerolled or committed suicide (played recklessly to reroll) or retired. The pure warlocks always said they are bored of Eldritch blast spam. They want to cast more than two spells per short rest, all of them said not how they envision a warlock, especially the newer players. Two spells a short rest doesn’t strike them as gaining powers of occult from a powerful being.

[Mastikator]

Personally I think this is a positive change maybe it’s my luck but the only warlocks I’d ever played with or DMed were dips or they all rerolled or committed suicide (played recklessly to reroll) or retired. The pure warlocks always said they are bored of Eldritch blast spam. They want to cast more than two spells per short rest, all of them said not how they envision a warlock, especially the newer players. Two spells a short rest doesn’t strike them as gaining powers of occult from a powerful being.

I'm with you, in general I'm positive to the changes to all the classes actually. The new warlock feels almost like a new class with mostly the same theme. The 2014 version strikes me as a magical slave who sells their soul to supernatural patron in exchange for less power than a wizard (a wizard who owes nothing, and owns their power), the UA strikes me as a arcane/occult dabbler, someone who gets magic from many sources and eventually (quickly) gets in too deep. Also you can dip into warlock without selling your soul.

Edit- the "it's icky" con was sarcastic, I don't think either is icky :smallsmile:

[Amnestic]

Pros:

Warlocks can cast way more spells
One fewer mechanical quirk is less confusing for newer players





These two, I would argue, cancel each other out.

Spells known, two slots only, both of them scaling automatically? Very simple. "Baby's first spellcaster", if you'd like. While pact magic is different, that quirk allows them a simpler approach to spellcasting.

Spellcasters are inherently complex because you need to know their spells, you've got more things to track, and moment-to-moment choices ("do I upcast this or not?"), and having more slots to do so adds to that complexity.

That's not a good or bad thing, inherently, but I do not think that the long rest warlock spellcasting is more new-player friendly, personally.

[Gignere]

I'm with you, in general I'm positive to the changes to all the classes actually. The new warlock feels almost like a new class with mostly the same theme. The 2014 version strikes me as a magical slave who sells their soul to supernatural patron in exchange for less power than a wizard (a wizard who owes nothing, and owns their power), the UA strikes me as a arcane/occult dabbler, someone who gets magic from many sources and eventually (quickly) gets in too deep. Also you can dip into warlock without selling your soul.

Edit- the "it's icky" con was sarcastic, I don't think either is icky :smallsmile:

Currently playing with a sorlock and he actually saids he gets 95% of the benefit of being a warlock just by dipping 2 levels, and he gets spell slots he can play with from sorcerer. He doesn’t even mind being behind a spell level. I think if they had a 1D&D celestial warlock he would totally reroll and just be a pure celestial warlock instead of a divine soul / celestial warlock dip.

[Bane's Wolf]

Pact magic was deliberately set up to provide a different dynamic. Its all or nothing, and in return you recover it much faster. You make different choices and decisions than the vancian levelled slot approach. Its a different set of pros and cons, thats the point.

And you also have invocations and better than average cantrips for those famine tomes between feasts.

This UA Warlock is just a step removed from the Artificer, a wizard that sacrifices a chunk of their spellcasting progression in order to get a sturdier chassis and a selection of features.
Which isnt bad, it works. But I protest the loss of variety. Magic that comes back on a short rest is cool. Magic that automatically scales is cool. Thats the kind of stuff i'd like to see the devs take and run with, rather than dump. Id like to see their dev notes on this one.


To be honest I don't entirely like the short rest mechanic on pact magic, but I'm not entirely thrilled about warlocks being half casters.

Pros:
- snip, even though i agree fully

Cons:

Having a different mechanic for warlocks made them feel more unique
It just feels icky?


Even though i like the new warlock, this criticism does ring true to me :smallconfused:

Warlock was the only class that broke the Vancian casting mold.
I don't personally like the implementation (at least recently. I played Warlock just fine for years without putting any real thought into it...)

I would love to have different casting methods for different classes. Spell-points is very cool, but perhaps works better for a Sorcerer, in my opinion.

Perhaps Warlock should have more powerful magic than even the mighty Wizard can use, but with some major drawbacks or restrictions, or a cost to be paid

I have no idea how to mechanically implement a system like that though that doesn't rely on a talented GM :smallconfused: