# Warlock and Sorcerer



## MoonSong (Aug 17, 2012)

Hey ENWORLD, while we await for the release of these two classes, How do you think they'll be based on what we know and what we've seen?. These two classes have a lot in common and they can give us an idea on how some other niche-swap classes will look like.

So any thoughts? Will sorcerer be like the 3.x , 4e or will it use spellpoints? Will the warlock have access to spells or will he get invocations/special attacks instead? Which version of which one is the definitive for you? How do you think they should be?

________________


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 17, 2012)

Warlocks carved out a really nice niche as the non-resource-management casters. It's great to be able to pick invocations and just use them, and it's a boon for DMs who don't want to deal with spellbooks for their NPC mages because invocations are spontaneous and few in number. Having the class's damage determined by level also makes balance easy, whereas other casters vary greatly depending on what spells they have access to.

It also provides a nice in-game vibe that's distinct from Vancian. Warlocks don't wear out; they seem like unstoppably driven foes.

It would be a real shame if they didn't carry all that over.


Sorcery also has a nice niche as Vancian without memorization. Surely we'll see a similar spontaneous casting system in 5e.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 17, 2012)

There was an option of trying to create a diverse, customizable Wizard class, but I'm not averse to seeing well done Sorcerers and Warlocks providing alternative magical styles. I just hope they are well themed, and in the case of the Warlock it would be nice to be able to call it a Witch.


----------



## ferratus (Aug 17, 2012)

I agree that the Warlock in 3e was a good contrast to the 3e wizard, in that all of his abilities were at-will, but he suffered because he didn't have enough offensive power.   They need to borrow from 4e and make them all about hellfire, poison, diseases, curses, and summoned devils.   If we are really lucky, we'll get the dark pact warlock variant that sacrificed the lifeforce of both himself and his allies to his master for a boost in power.   If Con isn't the most important stat for a warlock, I will be very sad.

I really liked the flavour of the 3e sorcerer (power from bloodlines) but the spontaneous vancian casting wasn't the best fit for it, IMO.   If we must have a spontaneous vancian caster we should give that to the warlock (to represent the spell-like abilities imbued by a fiendish master) and make the sorcerer the one with the continuous at-will abilities.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 17, 2012)

Well to me the best version of the warlock is the one from 4e, essentially being extremely thematic and flavored by their pacts, also the wide array of conditions they inflicted would be very cool if translated properly for the new ediiton. 

In contrast to me Pathfinder got the best flavor of the sorcerer, but I don't mind the 3.x version at all, being the simplest Vancian caster played very well and offered lots of tactical flexibility, the fourth edition one was too blastery for my tastes, wasn't flexible enough and it had too little bloodlines to choose from (yet I wouldn't mind seeing some of their powers as bloodline specific spells for Next)


----------



## Someone (Aug 17, 2012)

They used the words "reality hacker", so...


----------



## teancum42 (Aug 17, 2012)

From watching the Keynote I would surmise that the Warlock is going to be an AEDU (or something similar) class and that the Sorcerer is going to cast based on some sort of spell point system. 

When they flashed up the character creation page for the Sorcerer I think I saw a column of numbers labeled 'Willpower' or something of the sort. Sounds like spell points to me. Mearls mentioned the 3 basic schools of thought for magic (Vancian, AEDU, and Spellpoints). With wizards being vancian and sorcerers being spellpoints, that leaves warlocks being AEDU, right?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 17, 2012)

What is AEDU?


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 17, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> What is AEDU?




I believe it stands for "At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility", which was the power format of 4e.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Aug 17, 2012)

Okay now we're talking... so looking forward to this, to see how they do it. I kinda hope that all three arcane casters has their own Spells lists, maybe with a few overlapping. 

I loved the 3.x Warlock thematically but I wouldn't mind seeing the 5e be a combination of 3.x Warlock and Hexblade, and the Sorcerer be based on Pathfinders because their Sorcerer remains king of all Sorcerers so far. What could be cool is if they adapted the 4e psionics system of power points to Spell Points and Sorcerer Spells were Augmentable.


----------



## 1of3 (Aug 17, 2012)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Okay now we're talking... so looking forward to this, to see how they do it. I kinda hope that all three arcane casters has their own Spells lists, maybe with a few overlapping.




Oh dear, please not. At least not in general. It's alright for me, if there are some spells that only work for wizards or only for sorcerers, but strictly separate lists will entail lots of redundancy, as we have seen in 4e.


----------



## Bow_Seat (Aug 17, 2012)

teancum42 said:


> From watching the Keynote ...




Is there some place where I can find this to watch?

Edit: nevermind. I found an audio recording, which is just as good. 

For anyone else who missed the keynote, I'm listening to a recording at
http://thetome.podbean.com/2012/08/17/the-future-of-dnd-keynote-address-gencon-2012/


----------



## lutecius (Aug 17, 2012)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I kinda hope that all three arcane casters has their own Spells lists, maybe with a few overlapping.



I don't.

I don't care what it's called but I need a class (point based, ideally) to completely replace the Wizard (and every pseudo-Vancian caster for that matter), which won't work if spontaneous casters come with their own spell-lists and too much hardwired flavour (like 3e psionics for example).



1of3 said:


> strictly separate lists will entail lots of redundancy, as we have seen in 4e.



that too. no need to take so much space in a book for spells that do more or less the same thing. If you want different flavours of casters why not just use spell schools or spheres?


----------



## Danzauker (Aug 17, 2012)

I hope the Sorcerer to be spellpoint based with 3.x fluff (bloodlines, spontaneous magic abilities) and the Warlock to be AEDU with 4E fluff (pact with otherworldy entities).

Combined with the Vancian Wizard we should have all the bases covered and be happy pandas. 

Oh, and just one big spell list for all classes a la 3.x, please.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 17, 2012)

Danzauker said:


> Oh, and just one big spell list for all classes a la 3.x, please.




I think the 3.5 warlock did a great job of having its own fluff with its powers, while mostly drawing upon the same spell list that wizards and sorcerers used. The warlock powers would just state "this invocation works like X spell, except..." and that way they had tons of very unique and flavorful powers without a huge spell list of their own. The entire warlock invocation list in Complete Arcane, including descriptions, was only 4 pages long.

I hope they take a similar approach in this edition, as the warlock would be very boring if it just had the same old wizard spells, like "fly, wall of fire and baleful polymorph" instead of "wall of perious flame, fell flight and word of changing."


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 17, 2012)

If in order to never touch Vancian magic in 5E I have to never play the Wizard archetype and in order to run a Vancian-free 5E game I have to ban the Wizard class, I consider the system somewhat broken. I expect better from the word modularity.

Pre-emotive response: refluffing Warlock/Sorcerer does not fix this


----------



## ferratus (Aug 17, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If in order to never touch Vancian magic in 5E I have to never play the Wizard archetype and in order to run a Vancian-free 5E game I have to ban the Wizard class, I consider the system somewhat broken. I expect better from the word modularity.
> 
> Pre-emotive response: refluffing Warlock/Sorcerer does not fix this




Is it really such a problem to ban the Wizard?   I mean, you are asking quite a lot if you are expecting everyone to come around to not having Vancian magic in the course of the playtest.  If Vancian magic is a deal breaker for you, but I'm sorry but you are probably already out.

I mean, Vancian magic has its problems, some solveable and some not.  But there are things Vancian magic does that you can't get with the other D&D magic systems.   For example, I enjoy finding and collecting a wide variety of spells for example, which you can't really do with spontaneous casters, mana point casters, at-will casters who all have set spells chosen by character advancement instead.    

Even things that are problems that result (ie. the 15 minute adventuring day) still have their good points.   The daily spell resource management allows for a sense of magic that is extremely powerful, whereas at-will wizards will generally not be able to do things that are wondrous because they have to stay in line with what the mundane classes can do round to round.

You think the flaws of the Vancian magic system are too great to overcome its virtues, fair enough.  But those virtues are going to essential for a great number of D&D players, including myself.  I don't mind some alterations to reduce the flaws, but asking me to do without the virtues is too much.

As a side note, casualoblivion, remember how much it annoyed the crap out of us when certain people (who are mostly on my ignore list) thread crapped on every innovation and new mechanic related to 4e, even if it was fun and interesting?   The people who insisted that we couldn't be having fun with 4e because it wasn't really playable or D&D?    Over the last few days you've started to sound like that guy.   I mean this is a thread talking about the sorcerer and the warlock, not about how much Vancian casting sucks.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 17, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> If in order to never touch Vancian magic in 5E I have to never play the Wizard archetype and in order to run a Vancian-free 5E game I have to ban the Wizard class, I consider the system somewhat broken. I expect better from the word modularity.
> 
> Pre-emotive response: refluffing Warlock/Sorcerer does not fix this




Well, just because we get the sorc and the lock with different kinds of spellcasting, it doesn't automatically mean we won't get other variations for the wizard. On the other hand, modularity does not equal getting every option for every flavor and taste. Especially not out of the gate.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 17, 2012)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Pre-emotive response: refluffing Warlock/Sorcerer does not fix this




I'm curious as to why refluffing (or more to the point, replacing) doesn't fix it?  At least as far as the playtest wizard is concerned... the stuff having to do with just his spells (how he acquires them and how he casts them) is its own independent system apart from all the other stuff the wizard gets.  Why wouldn't you be able to just use all of the wizard class's base stuff (hit points, proficiencies, magic/weapon attack scores, INT for Save DCs, Arcane Knowledge, wizard spell list) and then just lift out the Vancian casting method and insert the warlock or sorcerer casting method in it's place?  But maintain all the standard wizard fluff that goes with it?  That's like barely a refluffing, and more just a mechanics replacement.

And if you say "no, that doesn't work for me"... what if WotC were to specifically write in the Player's Handbook that the three differing casting mechanics of the wizard/warlock/sorcerer are all interchangeable and you move any of them around to create the casting mechanic / class combo that you prefer?  Does that then make it "modular" enough that you'd be okay with it?


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 17, 2012)

Which ever class gets spellpoints, I hope they price the point costs by spell effect rather than by spell level.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Aug 17, 2012)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> Which ever class gets spellpoints, I hope they price the point costs by spell effect rather than by spell level.




Oh please finally they've never done this in DND and they really need to...

I won't even complain about sorc and psion being too similar if they do this on both, I'll be happy.


----------



## Teataine (Aug 17, 2012)

EDIT: deleted some needless confrontational stuff

_Ontopic_...The sheet shown at the keynote say Intelligence is the prime ability for the Warlock (bound to disappoint some) and Charisma for Socerer (expected).

Warlocks get +1 to Int or Dex or Con. 6+Con HP. Proficient with light armour, basic and finesse weapons and some other stuff that's blurred out. No idea how their magic works but mike talks about "bargains", which might be just fluff.

Sorcerers get +1 to Cha or Con. Your HP and proficiencies are non-existant, but defined by your sorcerous origin (basically Bloodline from PF I guess).

Then comes the interesting thing. Sorcerers get:
-Willpower (3 at lvl 1, 4 at lvl 2)
-Spells known (2 at lvl 1, 3 and 4 at the next two levels)
-and then it's a bit blurred out but I'm confident it says Max Spell Level and it seems to be 1 for the first three levels

So I think it's a safe bet Sorcerers pick spells known (probably from the same list as the wizard), which can't exceed the Max Spell Level and then spend Willpower to cast those spells (whether it's 1 Willpower per spell or 1 Willpower per spell level remains to be seen).

Finally, if I let myself speculate a bit, maybe they will let you do other stuff with Willpower, like maybe raise the DC of a spell or convert it into damage dice for a sorcerous blast or something.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 17, 2012)

A little back on topic, I really hope Sorcerers get to have spell slots instead of spell points, or failing that we get a premade array of spell points that emulate the feeling of having spell slots. My major concern is that spell points would threaten to make sorcerers a little too flexible, which in turn could mean they would get less "toys" on other areas different than simple spellcasting (like weapon proficiencies or bloodline powers).

If you don't believe me let's use the spell slots for a 3.5 4th level sorcerer as a comparison:
1st level - 6 slots
2nd level - 3 slots

such a sorcerer can cast a maximum of 9 spells per day, and is able to use some of the 2nd level spells for the casting of 1st level ones.

However an Unearthed Arcana sorcerer of the same level has 14 spell points, he can cast any combination of spells which goes from casting more second level spells (4) to casting lots of first level ones (14). This sorcerer is capable of casting more spells than the slot one, not to mention the increased bookkeping that it needs.


----------



## bogmad (Aug 17, 2012)

Hey, just saying, instead of guessing, the new classes are now in the playtest materials if you download them again...
At first glance, it looks like sorcerer is a "willpower points" system and warlock is AEDU.


----------



## Bran Mak Morn (Aug 17, 2012)

The new rules on sorcerors and warlocks are Now available!


----------



## Teataine (Aug 17, 2012)

Oh dang it, the could have put up a notice or sent a mail.

Downloading!

EDIT: The dragon sorcerer is sick. 1d8 hp. You can cast spells in armour, get +1 to attack and it's not at all hard to also gain +2 to melee dmg as you level up. Plus you can use one willpower for an additional 2d6 melee dmg.

They also obviously rushed this. There's a Dragon Breath power described, but it's not noted anywhere in the class in respect as to when you gain it or how often you can use it.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 17, 2012)

The Draconic Sorcerer is very Magic Knightish. I'm guessing that Dragon Breath is something like an 8th level power but accidentally slipped in.


----------



## Moon_Goddess (Aug 17, 2012)

"Accidently", teasing us slipped in there... yup that's it.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 17, 2012)

Immediate Reaction!

I hate spell points. I hate them. This will be abused.
I hate gaining spell levels a level later, it's a crude 'fix'.
All armour, martial weapons, casting spells in armour, a decent attack bonus. You're better than a cleric.

Warlock is the encounter guy, I'm ok with this.
Very nice fluff on each power/benefit.
I hope imposing disadvantage as a reaction takes a favour and they forgot.
Eldritch Blast, 3d6 or 4d6 each hit - sorry Fighter, you had a good run at being good for a while there.


----------



## Teataine (Aug 17, 2012)

Yeah, they need to tone that damage down. That's a lot of damage for a 1st level at-will.

The mass charm twice per short rest is also pretty crazy.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

Not only that, it's force damage.  Combine that with Ethereal Stride and things get ugly.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 17, 2012)

Love the warlock, it's everything I want an arcane caster to be.

Sorcerer I'm iffier on, the spell point system seems...I don't know.  Rushed?  The abilities that trigger by spending willpower are pretty cool.  I wouldn't mind seeing less spells and more stuff like that.  Honestly, between dragon strength, the proficiencies, the HPs, and the stuff you get as the willpower depletes, the spells are almost superfluous.  

As I keep thinking about it, sorcerer seems like it would be really cool if they took it in that direction, and left spells mostly out of it.  Give them less willpower overall, only a few spell or spell-like options, and more of a "hulk-out" feel as the willpower drops.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 17, 2012)

Cross-posted from the "new materials available" thread:

Interesting!

The sorcerer is a point-based spellcaster that gains constant benefits after he has expended a certain number of spell points ("willpower"). The more willpower he has expended, the more benefits he gets. Hence, his at-will baseline effectiveness increases as he expends his daily spike capability. Sorcerer spells appear to be a subset of the wizard spell list.

The warlock is effectively an encounter-based spellcaster, using "favors" from his patron to power pact boons and lesser invocations (he can use minor invocations at will, without expending favors) which can be regained after a short rest or a long rest. He also gains access to certain spells, but he can only cast them as rituals unless he gains spellcasting ability from another source.

Thumbs up from me.


----------



## Danzauker (Aug 17, 2012)

TwoSix said:


> Love the warlock, it's everything I want an arcane caster to be.
> 
> Sorcerer I'm iffier on, the spell point system seems...I don't know.  Rushed?  The abilities that trigger by spending willpower are pretty cool.  I wouldn't mind seeing less spells and more stuff like that.  Honestly, between dragon strength, the proficiencies, the HPs, and the stuff you get as the willpower depletes, the spells are almost superfluous.
> 
> As I keep thinking about it, sorcerer seems like it would be really cool if they took it in that direction, and left spells mostly out of it.  Give them less willpower overall, only a few spell or spell-like options, and more of a "hulk-out" feel as the willpower drops.




Since armor proficiency and weapon attack bonus increase by virtue of the bloodline, I'm quite positive the one presented is the "macho build" of the classe.

I think it's quite probable there will be another that focuses more on the spellcasting side.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 17, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Eldritch Blast, 3d6 or 4d6 each hit - sorry Fighter, you had a good run at being good for a while there.




A level 1 Fighter with Str 17 and a Greatsword deals 13 damage (6.5 weapon + 3 Str + 3.5 expertise) average per hit.

A level 1 Warlock with Int 17 deals 10.5 average per hit with Eldritch Blast.

A level 3 Fighter with Str 17 and a Greatsword deals 14 damage average per hit.

A level 4 Warlock with Int 17 deals 14 average per hit with Eldritch Blast.

A level 5 Fighter with Str 17 and a Greatsword deals 18.5 damage average per hit.


----------



## Teataine (Aug 17, 2012)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> :snip:



The Eldritch Blast is also ranged and force damage.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 17, 2012)

Danzauker said:


> Since armor proficiency and weapon attack bonus increase by virtue of the bloodline, I'm quite positive the one presented is the "macho build" of the classe.
> 
> I think it's quite probable there will be another that focuses more on the spellcasting side.



Oh, certainly.  But I still like the transformative aspect quite a bit.  I could see a flame bloodline, for example.

You gain abilities like burning hands and fireball by spending willpower, but gain fire resistance (or immunity at higher levels), a flame aura that damages nearby enemies, a melee attack that does fire damage, and at the end, your very stride creates a wall of fire effect.


----------



## Valetudo (Aug 17, 2012)

You might get drag breath at first level. I think they forgot to say how often you can use it. But im not sure.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 17, 2012)

Teataine said:


> The Eldritch Blast is also ranged and force damage.




What advantage does Force damage have over any other type currently?


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 17, 2012)

I like what I see, the damage needs to be tonned down, but overall I like both classes. It seems as if they took everything I iked about the sorcerer and ran with it, I was expecting the following from the sorcerer:

-More hit points than wizards
-Better weapon proficiencies
-The chance of cast in armor
-Support to be on melee (wizards shoot, sorcerers smash)
-Bloodline being a defining factor (and how!)
-Spontaneous casting (I don't mind the current "mana points" system, it is simple and intuitive)
-Slower DC and spell level advancement
-Variety of spell effects.
-No access to spells as rituals (rituals go agaisnt the fluff of the class, but I guess some bloodlinnes will allow it)

The only thing I don't like so far is that we've only seen the vanilla draconic sorcerer, and we have too few 1st level spells for variety to show up, but I understand that over time we will see fey, celestial, infernal, elemental and primordial bloodlines, each one affecting sorcerers in a deep way.


----------



## variant (Aug 17, 2012)

I like the crunch and fluff of the sorcerer (haven't tested the balance), but I am not really a fan of draconic bloodline, never have been. I hope there are some ancient bloodlines for them that don't involve monsters.

I really like the warlock though.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

Looking at this some more...

The dragon sorcerer is scary.  He's as good at combat as a War cleric, straight up;  and he can cast arcane spells in armor.  Lots of them.  Plus his nifty sorcerous powers.   I'd like to see another bloodline to compare.

The sorcerer spell list is interesting.  It's missing some spells I would have thought naturals, like Mage Hand and Thunder Wave.  And if fey-bloodline sorcerers can't cast Ghost Sound, I'll be a little disappointed.

Personally, I think it makes much more sense for High Elves to be minor fey-bloodline sorcerers instead of minor wizards.  I might just house-rule them to give a bonus to Cha instead of Int - fits the lore, too.

The warlock...  Wow.  Very impressive.  I never really dug the warlock before (never saw the 4e version, though), but this has its appeal.

I sincerely hope that the 'Oak Princess' is only an example of a fey pact, I can certainly think of other possibilities.

Are all invocations open to all pacts, I wonder?  Some of them might seem a little out of place - I mean, "Visage of the Summer Court" is very fey-themed, it's a little hard to imagine a devil granting that, at least with that name.  And speaking of, that mass charm has no hit-point threshold.  Typo?

Ritual casting, too.  Question:  If you have a multiclassed warlock/wizard, let's say - do the spells you've learned as a warlock count as spells in your wizard spellbook for preparation?  It would seem reasonable, though two of the warlock spells are from the cleric list.   Maybe only spells shared by the two lists can be prepared by a wizard?


----------



## Salamandyr (Aug 17, 2012)

EDIT: Never mind


----------



## variant (Aug 17, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> Personally, I think it makes much more sense for High Elves to be minor fey-bloodline sorcerers instead of minor wizards.  I might just house-rule them to give a bonus to Cha instead of Int - fits the lore, too.




High Elves aren't fey...


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

variant said:


> High Elves aren't fey...




They are if I want them to be. 



			
				Ultimatecalibur said:
			
		

> What advantage does Force damage have over any other type currently?




It synergizes very well with the ability to go ethereal, which a fey-pact warlock can potentially do for two rounds every encounter at first level.


----------



## Danzauker (Aug 17, 2012)

I really like the flavour touch ow Warlocks being to cast spells only as rituals.

Very "witchy".


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 17, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> They are if I want them to be.



Exactly.  The number 1 selling point of 5e should be its hackability.  And making elves more warlocks than wizards makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

TwoSix said:


> Exactly.  The number 1 selling point of 5e should be its hackability.  And making elves more warlocks than wizards makes perfect sense to me.




Yep.  Though I was thinking of fey-bloodline sorcerers, fey-pact warlocks could work too.  (In which case you're right back to Int.)

For some reason, I see gnomes being attracted to the warlock class - something about the forbidden lore and the hidden secrets.  If there's an illusion-heavy pact, I might just be intrigued enough to try it out.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Aug 17, 2012)

Can anyone clarify how Dragon Breath is to be used? Dragon Strength is the level 1 power, Dragon Scales at level 4 - is Breath a level 7 or 8 power?

Also, the level 3 Pact Boon (disadvantage on an attack) does not cost a favor?


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

On Puget Sound said:


> Can anyone clarify how Dragon Breath is to be used? Dragon Strength is the level 1 power, Dragon Scales at level 4 - is Breath a level 7 or 8 power?




I don't think it is supposed to be used at levels 1-5 at all.  I think it was left in by mistake.



> Also, the level 3 Pact Boon (disadvantage on an attack) does not cost a favor?




I really hope that's a typo.  Free disadvantage on attackers against you every round would be a bit much.

EDIT:  Question:  Do invocations count as spells for purposes of qualifying for specialties like Necromancer?  If they do, how would you even know which invocations qualified for the Aura of Souls boost?  And yet, necromancer warlocks make All Kinds Of Sense.

EDIT:  Duh.  The ritual spells would qualify even if the invocations don't.  Still, it's not easy to see what benefit they would get out of Aura of Souls, as I doubt there's very many ritual necromantic spells.  Maybe Aura of Souls needs to be broadened a bit, so that warlocks and high-elves can get more out of it.


----------



## Salamandyr (Aug 17, 2012)

I love the warlock.  It has a very classic fairy tale/pulp feeling to magic, where magic is less heretofore unknown principles of the universe, a la alchemy, and more the trafficking with things unnatural.  It feels dangerous.  I can see having it be the standard kind of magic for my sword & sorcery campaign.

Also, you can definitely feel the Dr. Strange origins of the class.  Another big plus.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 17, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> It synergizes very well with the ability to go ethereal, which a fey-pact warlock can potentially do for two rounds every encounter at first level.




So? You can spend an action to take half damage till the end of your next turn, and on your next turn you can make an attack to deal 4d6 damage. It is not like you are doing both at the same time. In fact a 1st level Rogue can do something similar(and possibly better) an unlimited number of times: Hide(can't be targeted) and then Sneak Attack the next turn.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 17, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> What is AEDU?




Is pronounced "Adeiux", which is French for Good-bye, as in "kiss this system of power management good-bye".


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Is pronounced "Adeiux", which is French for Good-bye, as in "kiss this system of power management good-bye".




Well, the warlock does have at-will, encounter, and utility powers.  (The ritual spells.)  No dailies, though.

TrippyHippy:  It stands for At-wiil, Encounter, Daily, Utility.  The types of powers that occur in 4e.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 17, 2012)

And...warlock is pretty much a disaster. The spell rituals are okay, but instead of getting at-will and always-on, they get limitations, and, even worse, those limitations are encounter-based. Completely defeats the point of the class from a mechanical perspective. Spell point sorcerer is fine, good even, but this update is bad news.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 17, 2012)

Teataine said:


> The Eldritch Blast is also ranged and force damage.




A longbow (with +3 dex) does 2 damage less that a greatsword on average, so the fighter still does a bit more damage, at least at 1st and 5th level. It also has triple the range, and it's held by a dude with more HP, better AC, and damage reduction on call.

I'm more concerned with the level 5 sorcerer casting 8 Acid Arrows (or 4 Acid Arrows and 8 Burning Hands) a day. Isn't that a bit much?


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

So, now that we have three systems for arcane magic, anyone else think we might eventually see similar options for divine?

I could totally sink my teeth into a divine version of the sorcerer.  Though I suppose 'Favored Soul' would be the traditional name, something like 'Avatar' might be even better - you become more and more like your deity.  Hey - with a martial focus (not dissimilar to the draconic bloodline) that could make a dandy paladin!

Not sure a divine version of warlock really makes sense.  If it did, 'theurge' might be a good name.  Though...  Just maybe, the druid could make sense along those lines.  The idea is you dedicate yourself to the forces of nature and allow them to work through you.  Things like Wild Shape would be the equivalent of invocations.

Certainly the legends of druids in the real world are closer to fey-pact warlocks than to the nature-priests D&D has always gone in for.

On a final note, who else is with me in wanting to see cleric Domains give access to specific lists of spells 2e-style, rather than the whole list being up for grabs?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 17, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> Well, the warlock does have at-will, encounter, and utility powers.  (The ritual spells.)  No dailies, though.




Well, it would seem odd if there are "minor" and "lesser" invocations but no "major" ones... 

I'm kind of surprised that there isn't a major (daily) invocation by level 5. Not for balance reasons, but because I'd think every class should have all its major features in play by about 5th level. Maybe they just don't have any dailies ready for playtesting ATM.

I had just assumed at first that the level 3 power used a favor. If not, it would mean the warlock can never be sneak attacked, so I'm guessing it DOES take a favor.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 17, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> On a final note, who else is with me in wanting to see cleric Domains give access to specific lists of spells 2e-style, rather than the whole list being up for grabs?



I do. For 3e, I house ruled clerics so that their spell lists are based upon the domains of the deity + a handful of generic cleric spells (e.g., augury, bless*, bestow curse*, remove curse, mark of justice*, atonement, planar ally**)

* spell is tailored to deity's domains.  
** each deity has a specific creature that appears for each of the planar ally spells. As the DM, I create  and assign the specific creature associated with the deity prior to the campaign.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 17, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> I'm kind of surprised that there isn't a major (daily) invocation by level 5. Not for balance reasons, but because I'd think every class should have all its major features in play by about 5th level. Maybe they just don't have any dailies ready for playtesting ATM.



Well, they did say they would have non-Vancian casters.  No dailies is pretty non-Vancian.


----------



## Pelenor (Aug 17, 2012)

Looks like I'm coming up with something like Element of Magic for 5e wizards in my game.   I plugged that into my 3.5 game with some tweaks and the little bit I saw it in use before the game ended I liked.    Vancian magic and they way WotC implentents spell point usually doesn't do it for me.   I'll give them a go but I don't expect I'll like them anymore than what came in the past.


----------



## Yora (Aug 17, 2012)

When I said I wanted sorcerers to be 3.5e psions, I never imagined that this could be happening.
But it did, which makes me particularly happy. ^^

Though that dragon background really sucks. D8, heavy armor, and all martial weapons?


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 17, 2012)

The warlock has some of the best flavor I have ever seen for a player class. And the mechanics evoke traditional/story magic very nicely.


----------



## Yora (Aug 17, 2012)

For my setting I want "freelance" witches and shrine-based shamans, who in addition to their normal spells can also call on the deity of their shrine or find some random spirit to strike a bargain with.
Now I'm quite confident that I'll be able to rig something up just reshuffling content from the PHB.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 17, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Well, it would seem odd if there are "minor" and "lesser" invocations but no "major" ones...




You know... That is a really good point!  I don't know why I didn't think of that.  And with that in mind, it wouldn't surprise me at all if "greater" invocations were in fact daily.



> I'm kind of surprised that there isn't a major (daily) invocation by level 5. Not for balance reasons, but because I'd think every class should have all its major features in play by about 5th level. Maybe they just don't have any dailies ready for playtesting ATM.




Maybe.  Or perhaps you "upgrade" lesser invocations into greater ones somehow?

And I'm glad to hear I'm not alone about cleric Domains!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 17, 2012)

I expect atleast 2 more levels of warlock powers


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 17, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I expect atleast 2 more levels of warlock powers




Least, Lesser, Greater, and Dark, if 3.5 Warlock is to be the model.

I like the fact they are a bit of a hybrid between 3.5's warlock and the 4e lock. Sorcerers getting spell points might take a bit of getting used to (I REALLY want a more wizardry bloodline so I can be a spell point user but not a battle mage). 

So, at the moment we have...

Wizard: Vancian Memorization 
Cleric: Spontaneous Caster 
Sorcerer: Spell Point
Warlock: At-will and encounter magic

Wonder what the Druid and Bard (the only real casters left) will look like?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 17, 2012)

TerraDave said:


> The warlock has some of the best flavor I have ever seen for a player class. And the mechanics evoke traditional/story magic very nicely.




I agree. I especially like the invocation side-effects that impact your role-playing (e.g. having to enunciate carefully after you take Baleful Utterance). I can't wait to see the star pact ones!


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 17, 2012)

As for the sorcerer - isn't it strictly better than a 5e evoker wizard, at least at even levels? He can cast just as many spells of the same level, plus he's way more flexible and has twice as many HP and wears plate armor. (The wizard does have a 1-2 point magic BAB advantage, which is important, but still.)

The wizard arcane traditions might help this a bit, but I'm thinking they'll have to cut down the spell points to make it work.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 17, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> As for the sorcerer - isn't it strictly better than a 5e evoker wizard, at least at even levels? He can cast just as many spells of the same level, plus he's way more flexible and has twice as many HP and wears plate armor. (The wizard does have a 1-2 point magic BAB advantage, which is important, but still.)
> 
> The wizard arcane traditions might help this a bit, but I'm thinking they'll have to cut down the spell points to make it work.



You are forgetting that a Wizard knows way more spells than the sorcerer can ever hope to learn.

Even a "suboptimal wizard" (Int +1 or less) will know 24 spells by 20th level by class advancement alone(assuming he also never ever increases Int), while all sorcerers can only know 21 at the same level regardless of everything else. A very uber optimized wizard will know as much as 93 by class advancement alone at that point. That sheer amount of startegical flexibility is a Huge advantage, if anything the sorcerer is finally getting the chance of even play. Also don't forget Wizards can ritual cast too, which the draconic sorcerer simply can't do.


----------



## tlantl (Aug 18, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> A longbow (with +3 dex) does 2 damage less that a greatsword on average, so the fighter still does a bit more damage, at least at 1st and 5th level. It also has triple the range, and it's held by a dude with more HP, better AC, and damage reduction on call.
> 
> I'm more concerned with the level 5 sorcerer casting 8 Acid Arrows (or 4 Acid Arrows and 8 Burning Hands) a day. Isn't that a bit much?




Yes I agree and this will only get worse as the player gains levels. This is my biggest issue with spell points. At some point the caster is going to be able to cast a lot of those infamous "I win" spells. Way more than a vancian wizard ever could. 

It doesn't do much for the 5 minute work day either. And going nova never looked so good!


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

Wow. I must say I'm really impressed! These classes are really interesting and flavorful. 

The warlock especially is very cool. It's like a really cool mix of both the 3.5 and 4e warlock, with a pinch of binder. I love how the powers come with minor personality quirks, though I would like to be able to choose how learning an invocation affects my character's personality.

The sorcerer is just... wow. Hella powerful. I think they should make the wizard's vancian casting work more like the cleric's, where they can cast prepared spells in any combination, up to their daily limit. I think they should also remove the armor restriction from wizard spells.

I think they should give sorcerers more than 2 cantrips.

The sorcerer gaining more bloodline traits as he spends willpower is a very cool and flavorful mechanic. It gives sorcerers something to do when they're low on spells but also encourages them to not horde their spell points.

It says a warlock starts with 2 favors, but does he not get any more as he increases in level? I haven't found any mention of that. It would be dumb if warlocks were stuck with only 2 encounter powers forever.

I love how the warlock can learn ritual spells, including even some cleric rituals. Very cool.

I hope warlocks get invocations that last for more than one turn. I miss my 3.5 warlock that had fell flight all day.

The progression tables are the only thing that really strike me as odd. I have no idea why sorcerers don't get magic attack bonuses and save DC progression at the same rate wizards do, and I have no idea why warlock save DCs scale faster than even the wizard's do.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The sorcerer is just... wow. Hella powerful. I think they should make the wizard's vancian casting work more like the cleric's, where they can cast prepared spells in any combination, up to their daily limit. I think they should also remove the armor restriction from wizard spells.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The progression tables are the only thing that really strike me as odd. I have no idea why sorcerers don't get magic attack bonuses and save DC progression at the same rate wizards do, and I have no idea why warlock save DCs scale faster than even the wizard's do.




To the first one, no way, Wizards are already too powerfull and too flexible overall, giving them also tactical flexibility truly is asking for problems, I wouldn't want to go there at all. As for casting on armor, that shouldn't be available to all wizards, as it goes agaisnt tradition, fluff and fairness. The justificqation for Sorcerers (and so far is only draconic sorcerers) and Warlocks to be able to cast in armor is simple: A warlock's patron is already doing the heavy lifting for him and for a sorcerer casting is like breathing or fighting while for a wizard is an exact science with little room for variation. A wizard should have to give away a lot of flexibility for him to wear armor.

And warlock's spell dc's grow at the same rate than wizard's. Perhaps some bloodlines will allow the sorcerer to scale at the same rate and some won't.


----------



## Pour (Aug 18, 2012)

Loving the flavor differences represented as distinct classes. Magic is suddenly a lot more interesting. As a 4e fan, having two other magical options really soothes my Vancian dissatisfaction. I'm a huge sucker for specific pacts and bloodlines, and there's just so much potential there for awesome patrons and sorcerer sources.

As mentioned earlier, lets give the druid and the bard something nice, too. And throw in an alternate Divine method, as well.


----------



## tlantl (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The sorcerer gaining more bloodline traits as he spends willpower is a very cool and flavorful mechanic. It gives sorcerers something to do when they're low on spells but also encourages them to not horde their spell points.



Sorcerers are never low on spells of the have will power points left. 

Those blood line powers seem like something some other class could use better. All I could see while putting together a sorcerer character how nicely those powers would work with a martial character, say the fighter.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Aug 18, 2012)

tlantl said:


> Sorcerers are never low on spells of the have will power points left.
> 
> Those blood line powers seem like something some other class could use better. All I could see while putting together a sorcerer character how nicely those powers would work with a martial character, say the fighter.




Yeah I agree... if the Fighter fighting styles were as cool as the Sorcerer Bloodlines and the Bloodline Powers...now that would make an epic Fighter.

The Fighter needs a blanket increase to it's Damage Dealt... It should do the most damage in melee and have the most martial options as masters of melee combat.

Regarding Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks... IMO the Wizards just got very lame. Having to prepare multiple copies of the same spell to cast it more than once in a day, uh forget that. That's lame. I'm going to change that in my own games to flexible vancian casting. 

The Draconic Bloodline is a good example of the potential of the game, but Sorcerers are badass.

Now they really need to give the Cleric more Channel Divinities per day, just to keep up.

And Warlocks... IMO the best Class in the playtest packet, both flavorwise but just all-round...  a very cool mesh of 3e and 4e Warlocks into something new.


----------



## gyor (Aug 18, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> To the first one, no way, Wizards are already too powerfull and too flexible overall, giving them also tactical flexibility truly is asking for problems, I wouldn't want to go there at all. As for casting on armor, that shouldn't be available to all wizards, as it goes agaisnt tradition, fluff and fairness. The justificqation for Sorcerers (and so far is only draconic sorcerers) and Warlocks to be able to cast in armor is simple: A warlock's patron is already doing the heavy lifting for him and for a sorcerer casting is like breathing or fighting while for a wizard is an exact science with little room for variation. A wizard should have to give away a lot of flexibility for him to wear armor.
> 
> And warlock's spell dc's grow at the same rate than wizard's. Perhaps some bloodlines will allow the sorcerer to scale at the same rate and some won't.




 Plus Warlocks outside of Rituals don't cast normal spells, invocations don't require the whole song and dance, thier forbidden pieces,of knowledge, powerful fragments, like words,in forbidden languages or stolen piece of Fey beauty you simply unleash. They use violations of reality, not spells so it makes sense they can,use armour as that doesn't interfer in that.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> To the first one, no way, Wizards are already too powerfull and too flexible overall, giving them also tactical flexibility truly is asking for problems, I wouldn't want to go there at all.




I disagree. Preparation is a big enough limit, I don't think it's necessary to have to guess how many fireballs I might need on any given day. If it doesn't break the cleric, I don't see why it would break the wizard.



KaiiLurker said:


> As for casting on armor, that shouldn't be available to all wizards, as it goes agaisnt tradition, fluff and fairness. The justificqation for Sorcerers (and so far is only draconic sorcerers) and Warlocks to be able to cast in armor is simple: A warlock's patron is already doing the heavy lifting for him and for a sorcerer casting is like breathing or fighting while for a wizard is an exact science with little room for variation. A wizard should have to give away a lot of flexibility for him to wear armor.




Just to clarify, I would remove the restriction from casting spells in armor, but I wouldn't give wizards any armor proficiencies by default. Some traditions, like warmages, might have that option, though.


----------



## Grimmjow (Aug 18, 2012)

personally i hope that sorcs get the point system and warlocks are something close to 4e with the pacts giving them different powers.


----------



## Ichneumon (Aug 18, 2012)

If there's something beyond lesser invocations, I'd predict it to cost multiple favors, especially if you get more than two at higher levels.

These two classes are off to a great start, and I look forward to seeing future variants. Especially the star pact warlock.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> I disagree. Preparation is a big enough limit, I don't think it's necessary to have to guess how many fireballs I might need on any given day. If it doesn't break the cleric, I don't see why it would break the wizard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, I would remove the restriction from casting spells in armor, but I wouldn't give wizards any armor proficiencies by default. Some traditions, like warmages, might have that option, though.



Well, for starters Clerics have less slots than the wizard, and an overall more focussed spell list with far less niche-invading spells, and they need the tactical flexibility in order to be good battlefield healers, otherwise they would have to preppare only healing spells, and second it fits with the flavor of the class. It sure should be painful to play a blaster wizard, I don't feel like I could run one, the only wizard I've ever played was a diviner, but it is the cost for knowing an unlimited number of spells and having the ability to switch niches overnight, that oppossed to sorcerers and warlocks that are stuck within a niche for their whole careers, tactical flexibility and wearing armor are what keeps them more or less competitive compared with wizards, giving those to the wizards is like taking away a kid's very treassured special plushie to give it to the spoiled kid that already has more toys than he can play with on all of his childhood.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 18, 2012)

I won't comment on the relative power of these two classes because knocking a d6 off here and adding a cantrip there is easy - and that sort of balance will hopefully be the focus of later play testing where the ore ideas are more settled. However I will comment on the impression or feel of these classes, just great! I always found the difference between 3 E sorcerer and wizard to be lame as a class niche. These two classes nail it, very different spell casting and features. I always loved the 2E speciality clerics and Fantasy Craft's priest class, and to a lesser extent Pathfinder's bloodlines. These carry on in that vein, what great flavor backed up mechanically.

And the min maxer in me wants to eldritch blast at 3d6!


----------



## On Puget Sound (Aug 18, 2012)

I found another error:  the recommended gear for a Sorcerer includes a Greatsword.  Sorcerers are proficient in Martial melee weapons, but a Greatsword is a Heavy weapon, not Martial.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 18, 2012)

I was wondering that too, but I think that heavy is a part of martial but just not able to be used by small characters.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

One thing I don't like is warlocks having to "pray" to their patron for more "favors." Warlocks are arcane casters, not divine casters. Once they have made their pact and paid its price, their power should be entirely their own, to use as they see fit. The idea of having to get down and beg for more power after every encounter is a big turn off for me. I'd play a cleric if I wanted to beg some higher power for spells all the time.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 18, 2012)

I view the warlock 'beseeching' as more like a business transaction than an act of worship.  Along the lines of 'pay up, I'm out', though in a very respectful tone (to somebody who can squash you like a bug, after all).

'Beseech' was perhaps a poorly-chosen word, as it implies the distinct possibility of refusal.  If the warlock has held up his side of the bargain, the patron should hold up theirs.  Though the word 'favor' does imply a certain amount of brown-nosing.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> I view the warlock 'beseeching' as more like a business transaction than an act of worship.  Along the lines of 'pay up, I'm out', though in a very respectful tone (to somebody who can squash you like a bug, after all).
> 
> 'Beseech' was perhaps a poorly-chosen word, as it implies the distinct possibility of refusal.  If the warlock has held up his side of the bargain, the patron should hold up theirs.  Though the word 'favor' does imply a certain amount of brown-nosing.




The way I see it, the warlock discovers the forbidden rites that let him contact one of the strange otherworldly entitities that grant pacts. The patron then offers the warlock great power, but at a price. The warlock agrees. The deal is struck. The warlock then has that power implanted in his soul or whatever, and then, it's his, permanently. It can't be revoked or taken away at that point, nor should he ever have to beg to have it refreshed. Once the pact is sealed, that should be it. The patron shouldn't be able to take it away, and the warlock likewise can't back out of the drawbacks that come with it (and which grow as his power does).

The idea that he has to keep going back to his patron to refuel his powers makes warlocks too much like divine casters, rather than cunning oathbreakers that seek out forbidden magic as a way of cheating to get power that mortals aren't meant to have.

[Edit] There's another reason I think warlocks shouldn't have to keep going back to their patron for power. What if that patron being dies? What if Verenestra gets ganked by adventurers? The warlock shouldn't be out of luck if that happens. In fact, I can see a warlock hunting down his patron as part of an epic adventure. Maybe he made a pact with an archfiend but then turned against him, so the archfiend has been sending demons and cultists to hunt him down. The warlock should be able to kill that archfiend without losing his powers.


----------



## Underman (Aug 18, 2012)

Looking at the source fiction for warlocks, I think warlocks should do some brown-nosing or favor-beseeching or whatever you call it.

4E warlocks seem to get a free pass. Any consequences of these dark dealings (which would be very interesting to roleplay) were AFAICT delegated to the DM and player, and it some gaming groups avoid it altogether. Which, if true, is convenient, but convenient doesn't match my expectations of the archetype.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 18, 2012)

Perhaps.  Though the sort of caster outlined in the current warlock class is certainly flavorful and has plenty of fictional precedent.

The name isn't the best, I grant, but then it never was.

EDIT:  This was in reply to Falling Icicle.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

Underman said:


> Looking at the source fiction for warlocks, I think warlocks should do some brown-nosing or favor-beseeching or whatever you call it.
> 
> 4E warlocks seem to get a free pass. Any consequences of these dark dealings (which would be very interesting to roleplay) were AFAICT delegated to the DM and player, and it some gaming groups avoid it altogether. Which, if true, is convenient, but convenient doesn't match my expectations of the archetype.




The type of warlock that serves demons and such for power is quite controversial. While some warlocks may choose to maintain such a relationship with their patron, I don't think all warlocks should have to.

The word warlock means "oath breaker." I want to be able to forge a pact with a demon, take the fiendish powers it grants, tell it "hey thanks!", flip it the bird and then use those dark powers for good. If that character concept is "wrong," I don't want to be right.

I'm not saying that warlock pacts shouldn't come with drawbacks. That's the price that comes with taking that shortcut to power. I just don't want to be forced to have to "pray" to my patron to get my expendable powers back. Once the pact has been sealed, I should never have to deal with my patron again.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 18, 2012)

Y'know, one thing I'd like to see changed if Warlocks (AKA Witches!!!) are a core class, is the limitation of refering exclusively to Arcane and Divine 'power sources'. Warlocks aren't really tapping into the same source of power as the arcane casting Wizards, in the same way that Druids aren't tapping into a Divine source. Druids are really 'Primal' casters, and Warlocks/Witches are arguably 'Diaboliocal' casters (although some of them might be quite good! ). 

Sorcerers are an odd deal, and this is why I'd like them to be worked on in terms of a strong differentiating theme to Wizards. The 3rd Edition Sorcerers were really just spontaneously casting wizards - which isn't a strong enough archetype in my view to be worth it. I'm not saying don't have the Sorcerer, just make the differentiation more thematically apparent.[EDIT] Actually, having commented on the other thread - having a Sorcerer based on a 'Chaos' power source would make for a much more interesting theme. Actually, it'd make me really want to play one....


----------



## Underman (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The word warlock means "oath breaker." I want to be able to forge a pact with a demon, take the fiendish powers it grants, tell it "hey thanks!", flip it the bird and then use those dark powers for good. If that character concept is "wrong," I don't want to be right.



In that character concept, how do you explain why this dark patron is giving away fiendish powers like free candy? What's in it for him/her? Why wouldn't the patron keep checking on the progress of the dark pact like a bad landlord and the warlock is paying rent? Why is the PC warlock apparently smarter than the immortal patron whose been doing this for centuries and expects foolish mortals to try to flip the bird? I don't think it's "wrong" per se, but it seems too convenient or perhaps naive for what I'd expect from the D&D world. I just don't understand why it would be the norm for a D&D world. If the warlock rules represent the 'norm' for dark bargains, I'd like to see exceptional cases being optional from the default rules.







> I'm not saying that warlock pacts shouldn't come with drawbacks. That's  the price that comes with taking that shortcut to power. I just don't  want to be forced to have to "pray" to my patron to get my expendable  powers back. Once the pact has been sealed, I should never have to deal  with my patron again.



Once the pact has been sealed, and the stupid patron feels screwed, and your warlock is still running 100% of the fiend's powers, can the fiend seek vengeance and send minions to kill you or other punishment?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 18, 2012)

Thematically, if the Warlock/Witch Class is based on Faustian pacts with diabolocal forces, then I, for one, would expect all these characters to find it increasingly difficult to escape a nasty end as they progress in level. 

Power and consequences and all that. All diabolists will be screwed by the devil in the end. 

This is not to say that it wouldn't be really fun to play - just that, like Vampires in the White Wolf game, they are all thematically doomed in the end. That'd be nice...


----------



## Xris Robin (Aug 18, 2012)

Ghost Rider and Spawn.  It's a classic trope to betray the evil patron that grants you power.  There may be downsides to it, but that just makes for a better story.


----------



## Yora (Aug 18, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> The 3rd Edition Sorcerers were really just spontaneously casting wizards - which isn't a strong enough archetype in my view to be worth it. I'm not saying don't have the Sorcerer, just make the differentiation more thematically apparent.



I know, but you just can't get them convinced that wizards should be dropped from the game.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

Underman said:


> In that character concept, how do you explain why this dark patron is giving away fiendish powers like free candy? What's in it for him/her? Why wouldn't the patron keep checking on the progress of the dark pact like a bad landlord and the warlock is paying rent?




Because it benefits from the drawback that is an intrinsic part of the warlock's pact. Varenestra gets to steal some of your beauty, for example. We don't know yet what an archdemon gets, but I'm sure it gets to take something from the warlock. There's no escaping that, and that's fine with me. I only have a problem with the idea that the warlock is dependent upon the patron to refuel his abilities. Once the pact is sealed, the power should be his.



Underman said:


> Once the pact has been sealed, and the stupid patron feels screwed, and your warlock is still running 100% of the fiend's powers, can the fiend seek vengeance and send minions to kill you or other punishment?




Absolutely. I just don't want the patron to be able to go "yoink! you have no powers anymore!"


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 18, 2012)

Yora said:


> I know, but you just can't get them convinced that wizards should be dropped from the game.



Well, that's because some players like playing Wizards as they are. All I'm saying is don't just base the Sorcerer Class on mechanical issues, but actually represent an archetype that is distinct from the arcane, spellbook studying Wizard. 

Sorcerers could be cool, especially if you can really play freaky ones. I just don't think the 3rd edition Sorcerer had any fully developed theme to support anything particularly imaginitive.


----------



## variant (Aug 18, 2012)

I would like to see the sorcerer get their own spells instead of sharing 100% with the wizard.


----------



## Yora (Aug 18, 2012)

Given that they call it a "Sorcerer Spell List" right now, I think this is highly likely, with some overlap.

Though I don't really see what a sorcerer would be able to do, what a wizard can't.


----------



## Underman (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> Absolutely.



Make sense for some archetypes I guess (get permanent power, pay for later if you doublecross).



Falling Icicle said:


> I just don't want the patron to be able to go "yoink! you have no powers anymore!"



Before you create a warlock, make a pact with the Dungeon Master entity. The deal is that the patron will not yoink your PC's powers without  your consent.

Reading the playtest now, I believe the simple rite is there to justify for the simulationist crowd (myself included) how the warlock is receiving those powers.

Or... you could refluff it so that the warlock does a simple rite to draw the  power from within (like a sorcerer does, but using a rite and not  willpower)

BTW, I LOVE how warlocks are not assumed to have diabolic/fiendish patrons by default, according to the reading of the playtest (vs the original "evil-is-kewl" warlock).


----------



## Zustiur (Aug 18, 2012)

variant said:


> I would like to see the sorcerer get their own spells instead of sharing 100% with the wizard.




And my first step in separating them would be to remove 'named' spells like Melf's Acid Arrow from the Sorcerers' list. Those sorts of spells should belong to wizards alone.

 [MENTION=17077]Falling Icicle[/MENTION] I completely get where you're coming from and agree that having to continually negotiate with your patron is a divine thing, not a warlock thing. However, can you please provide a fluff explanation for encounter based warlock powers? I'm drawing a blank right now, but I know a satisfactory explanation must exist.


----------



## variant (Aug 18, 2012)

I am of the opinion that most of the wizard spell list should be exclusive to the wizard and the sorcerer should have a narrower spell list. The wizard is highly dependent on their spells while the sorcerer is less so. Plus, it also allows for an easier job at balancing the sorcerer with their spell points. Some crossover could exist, but the spell lists should look as different between the two as the spell lists between the cleric and wizard.

It should be the same way with the bard and druid as well.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

I agree that the sorcerer should have its own spell list. I've wanted that since 3.0. I also think it's important that sorcerers don't just have a trimmed down version of the wizard spell list. There should be some things sorcerers can do that wizards can't. I can see them having some nature spells in their list, for example. A few spells from the druid list that draw upon the raw forces of nature, like entangle, could fit some sorcerer concepts.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

Zustiur said:


> [MENTION=17077]Falling Icicle[/MENTION] I completely get where you're coming from and agree that having to continually negotiate with your patron is a divine thing, not a warlock thing. However, can you please provide a fluff explanation for encounter based warlock powers? I'm drawing a blank right now, but I know a satisfactory explanation must exist.




The warlock is channeling otherworldly, alien and unnatural forces when he uses invocations. Perhaps using those powers is spiritually taxing, requiring a short period of rest to recover. Instead of being called favors, perhaps this resource is called Eldritch Essence, which represents how much spiritual energy a warlock can invoke before needing to rest.

That's the best I could come up with for now.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Aug 18, 2012)

perhaps the short ritual is not to beg for power,but to steal more of it.  Or maybe the power is always there, but the ritual is to hide the etheric traces of its use so the patron doesn't learn that you're still alive and still using it.

As with just about everything, you can change the fluff to suit your character concept if you want a warlock that doesn't do things the way most warlocks do.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 18, 2012)

I dont mind the rites to ask fir favors, and maybe a sidebar with a spawn/ghost rider take this curse and make it my own reflavor.


----------



## Bow_Seat (Aug 18, 2012)

variant said:


> I am of the opinion that most of the wizard spell list should be exclusive to the wizard and the sorcerer should have a narrower spell list. The wizard is highly dependent on their spells while the sorcerer is less so. Plus, it also allows for an easier job at balancing the sorcerer with their spell points. Some crossover could exist, but the spell lists should look as different between the two as the spell lists between the cleric and wizard.
> 
> It should be the same way with the bard and druid as well.




I definitely agree that the sorcerer should have a separate spell list, but I think that it could look more like the bard spell list vs. the wizard spell list from 3.x

I don't want to imply that sorcerers should deal only with obfuscation, trickery, and irresistible dancing, but rather that there can be overlap. If you look at a wizard list vs a bard list in 3.x it's very easy to tell what you're looking at.

Plus, honestly, I think that it takes a LOT of work to balance all the potential combinations of spells in the game. So having just a bit of overlap means that you have to deal with less total combinations.

Edit: I thought of a better example. Comparing the Wizard spell list to the Assassin spell list. Both technically cast arcane spells. Both had overlap in the list, but neither list looked anything like the other. 

TL;DR:  So long as they create a sense of independence and unique class flavor, minor overlaps don't matter.


----------



## Yora (Aug 18, 2012)

I think this could be a good starting point for sorcerer spell lists:







Since it's a more natural way to use arcane magic, I think spells should not be as refined and a bit more blunt, but also more versatile. There's no need for hologram-like illusions and text-based runes, that stuff is for wizards. Sorcerers are for quick and dirty on the fly solutions, like making roofs collapse, errecting a wall of ice that will melt in a couple of minutes and is not particularly hard to shatter, and stuff like that.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 18, 2012)

Yora said:


> Since it's a more natural way to use arcane magic, I think spells should not be as refined and a bit more blunt, but also more versatile. There's no need for hologram-like illusions and text-based runes, that stuff is for wizards. Sorcerers are for quick and dirty on the fly solutions, like making roofs collapse, errecting a wall of ice that will melt in a couple of minutes and is not particularly hard to shatter, and stuff like that.




I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree about illusions.  I could totally see a fey-bloodline sorcerer using glamours and the like.  Runes I do agree with, along with anything with a name on it.

It's probably asking too much for the spell list to vary between bloodlines, I suppose.  At most a bloodline could add a couple signature spells.

EDIT:



Christopher Robin said:


> Ghost Rider and Spawn.  It's a classic trope to betray the evil patron that grants you power.  There may be downsides to it, but that just makes for a better story.




Is it? Can you think of any examples prior to the twentieth century?


----------



## variant (Aug 18, 2012)

Bow_Seat said:


> Plus, honestly, I think that it takes a LOT of  work to balance all the potential combinations of spells in the game. So  having just a bit of overlap means that you have to deal with less  total combinations.




I think it would take more effort to balance spells to be used across multiple completely different classes. A sorcerer, for example, has a spell point system which is by far completely different than the wizard's dailies. 



The Shadow said:


> It's probably asking too much for the spell list to vary between bloodlines, I suppose.  At most a bloodline could add a couple signature spells.




I don't think it's too much if you have a set spell progression for each bloodline. Basically the sorcerer wouldn't really get to choose or change their spell list.


----------



## bogmad (Aug 18, 2012)

variant said:


> I think it would take more effort to balance spells to be used across multiple completely different classes. A sorcerer, for example, has a spell point system which is by far completely different than the wizard's dailies.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's too much if you have a set spell progression for each bloodline. Basically the sorcerer wouldn't really get to choose or change their spell list.




Isn't this what they're doing, but with more flexibility?  There is a progression of "sorcerous powers" the sorcerer gets every few levels, according to bloodline that he doesn't choose or change. He just also gets access to the sorcerer spell list for variety, which happens to overlap with the wizard's list.  
Everybody gets what he wants! Everybody can be happy! (as if that'll happen)


----------



## variant (Aug 18, 2012)

bogmad said:


> Isn't this what they're doing, but with more flexibility?  There is a progression of "sorcerous powers" the sorcerer gets every few levels, according to bloodline that he doesn't choose or change. He just also gets access to the sorcerer spell list for variety, which happens to overlap with the wizard's list.
> Everybody gets what he wants! Everybody can be happy! (as if that'll happen)




The sorcerer eclipses the wizard in almost every way right now.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 18, 2012)

variant said:


> The sorcerer eclipses the wizard in almost every way right now.



I don't think so, or at least not totally, simple as that the draconic sorcerer is right now a Gish "class", there are also fears that he also outshines the fighter, while I agree spell points can easily lend themselves to low level spells spam, it really helps with the flavor. And remember a sorcerer can only know 21 spells on all of his career, while the wizard has no limit on that number, has a faster attack, DC and spell progression and I bet not all bloodlines will focus on heavy armor and martial weapons, my ideal sorcerer gets finesse weapons and no armor. We need to playtest to see if the sorcerer really manages to outclass the wizard.


----------



## variant (Aug 18, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> I don't think so, or at least not totally, simple as that the draconic sorcerer is right now a Gish "class", there are also fears that he also outshines the fighter, while I agree spell points can easily lend themselves to low level spells spam, it really helps with the flavor. And remember a sorcerer can only know 21 spells on all of his career, while the wizard has no limit on that number, has a faster attack, DC and spell progression and I bet not all bloodlines will focus on heavy armor and martial weapons, my ideal sorcerer gets finesse weapons and no armor. We need to playtest to see if the sorcerer really manages to outclass the wizard.




How many spells you know has some benefit, but not a lot when you are forced to memorize a set of spells each day and hope you chose the right ones. A sorcerer can not only spam low level spells, but they will more likely have the right spell on hand at the right time. A sorcerer will also be able to cast more high level spells by simply sacrificing the spell points he had for his lower level spells. A wizard is basically stuck with a bunch of useless low level spells he won't ever really use much at high level.


----------



## bogmad (Aug 18, 2012)

variant said:


> The sorcerer eclipses the wizard in almost every way right now.




Except for # of spells learned, spells available, spell DC, and ability to cast rituals. ...

But yeah I can get where you're coming from.  It definitely feels more exciting. I'd probably play this over the wizard, but that's mainly due to my preferences as to what kind of character I like to play. 

The wizard's more of that weird bookish guy that nobody pays attention to in relation to the flashy guy growing dragon scales over there.

Especially, if your wizard chooses a sub-optimal suite of spells he could easily start to look pretty not-so-great


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 18, 2012)

While it would seem to look better, we don't really need separate spell lists for all classes, if those classes are *mostly *designed to do exactly the same thing, which is blast away monsters on the battlefield.

Any attempt at differentiating them IMHO will result either in (a) having spells which are more or less equivalent but just different flavor, or (b) taking away from the wizard a series of abilities which have always been her.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 18, 2012)

bogmad said:


> Except for # of spells learned, spells available, spell DC, and ability to cast rituals. ...
> 
> But yeah I can get where you're coming from.  It definitely feels more exciting. I'd probably play this over the wizard, but that's mainly due to my preferences as to what kind of character I like to play.
> 
> ...



If the wizard picked the wrong spells for the day, all he has to do is wait for the next long rest to try again, and if he truly knows bad spells all he has to do is wait to level up in order to learn three more spells, or just until the next time a scroll or a library shows up to copy more spells to his spell book. If a sorcerer picks bad spells he has to deal with them everyday for his whole career.


----------



## Yora (Aug 18, 2012)

variant said:


> How many spells you know has some benefit, but not a lot when you are forced to memorize a set of spells each day and hope you chose the right ones. A sorcerer can not only spam low level spells, but they will more likely have the right spell on hand at the right time. A sorcerer will also be able to cast more high level spells by simply sacrificing the spell points he had for his lower level spells. A wizard is basically stuck with a bunch of useless low level spells he won't ever really use much at high level.



The same concernes have been voiced about psions in 3rd Edition, and common consensus is, that this is simply not happening in practice. Psions are still bunched in with wizard, cleric, druid, and artificiers, but they did not surpass wizards and clerics, against we have to compare them when it comes to judging their spellcasting ability.

And the guy who invented the whole 3.5e power point system is also in the 5th Edition design team, so there's a very high chance that pitfals can be avoided.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 18, 2012)

I really want to see how they're going to implement those wizard traditions now, because wizards don't seem that interesting now.


----------



## tuxgeo (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The type of warlock that serves demons and such for power is quite controversial. While some warlocks may choose to maintain such a relationship with their patron, I don't think all warlocks should have to.
> 
> The word warlock means "oath breaker." I want to be able to forge a pact with a demon, take the fiendish powers it grants, tell it "hey thanks!", flip it the bird and then use those dark powers for good. If that character concept is "wrong," I don't want to be right.




I think the "oath breaker" definition simply refers to "The Social Contract," in the sense that a warlock is someone who breaks the social contract (defaults on societal expectations) by forging a pact with a(n anti-social) "power beyond." With this interpretation, warlocks can stay in good standing with their patrons and can keep getting power without further contact; but their patrons still do have hooks into the warlocks' hides (or souls) that give the patrons power over the warlocks' actions.



> I'm not saying that warlock pacts shouldn't come with drawbacks. That's the price that comes with taking that shortcut to power. I just don't want to be forced to have to "pray" to my patron to get my expendable powers back. Once the pact has been sealed, I should never have to deal with my patron again.



Hm. You should have to deal with your patron again if you want further clarification about the quests your patron gives you, or if you want it to give you additional quests. And if you go against its wishes, you'll probably have to deal with it again because it will come after you, accusing you of stealing its power.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 18, 2012)

While the sorcere seems quite powerful right now, he is actually to be compared to the cleric. And they are standing on equal footing in hp and armor department, and their attack and spell DC progressions, while the fighter and the wizard and even the warlock outclass both of them on their own battlefield.

And people, please leave the wizard spellcasting mechanics in peace. There are people who like it that way and honestly believe it is the more flexible mechanic - like me.

Would I mind some at-will spells? No. Some tradition? No. Schools of magic? No. But the core of the wizard is the vancian type who can learn every spell but must prepare wisely.
The ADnD bard was also vancian. I´d take him everytime over the 3rd edition bard who was limited to so few spells per level it was not funny. Never intended to play the sorcerer.
This type (although maybe a bit of balance needs to be done) seems cool right out of the gate, not stepping on the wizards toe. The warlock also seems like an interesting incarnation of the 3e one. Ritual casting replacing use magic device. Nice. 

I also like, that all three of them use the same spell list. If 4e had used unified spell and maneuver lists, I guess it wouls have been received a lot better. Mostly identical spells and maneuvers in 2-4 different lists prevented us from remembering iconics  (come and get it or twin strike non-withstanding) and wasted a lot of space.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 18, 2012)

variant said:


> How many spells you know has some benefit, but not a lot when you are forced to memorize a set of spells each day and hope you chose the right ones. A sorcerer can not only spam low level spells, but they will more likely have the right spell on hand at the right time. A sorcerer will also be able to cast more high level spells by simply sacrificing the spell points he had for his lower level spells. A wizard is basically stuck with a bunch of useless low level spells he won't ever really use much at high level.




An interesting rule change for the sorcerer would be that they only cast their higher level spells once they've spent a certain amount of willpower.  I like the idea of lower willpower reflecting them tapping more and more into their innate heritage, and I'm in love with the idea of a class transforming itself by spending resources.  

Additionally, it would prevent alpha strikes, instead the sorcerer is more of the clean-up guy.  He spends a couple fights slowly tapping into his power, and at the last desperate fight, he's finally tapped in enough to use his most powerful abilities.


----------



## Yora (Aug 18, 2012)

That might be fun for a few characters in very specific types of campaigns, but I don't think that's anything that people who just want a non-vancian wizard want to have to deal with.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The way I see it, the warlock discovers the forbidden rites that let him contact one of the strange otherworldly entitities that grant pacts. The patron then offers the warlock great power, but at a price. The warlock agrees. The deal is struck. The warlock then has that power implanted in his soul or whatever, and then, it's his, permanently. It can't be revoked or taken away at that point, nor should he ever have to beg to have it refreshed. Once the pact is sealed, that should be it. The patron shouldn't be able to take it away, and the warlock likewise can't back out of the drawbacks that come with it (and which grow as his power does).
> 
> The idea that he has to keep going back to his patron to refuel his powers makes warlocks too much like divine casters, rather than cunning oathbreakers that seek out forbidden magic as a way of cheating to get power that mortals aren't meant to have.




Warlock is a class you can gain at 1st level. How many characters at that level are going to be able to muster up any kind of impressive 'price' that will satisfy some otherworldly being?

To me, it makes more sense that the warlock is entering into a long-term pact, gaining power and favour in return for satisfying the patron being's needs at some future point, or on an ongoing basis. It's an active, two-way agreement that will evolve as the character does.



> [Edit] There's another reason I think warlocks shouldn't have to keep going back to their patron for power. What if that patron being dies? What if Verenestra gets ganked by adventurers? The warlock shouldn't be out of luck if that happens.




One way to handle this is to have contracts be passed along, or even go up for grabs, if one party ceases to be in a position to fulfil them. In the Dresden Files novels, the protagonist has a long-term deal with a powerful fey of the Winter Court. When that fey is temporarily incapacitated, it falls upon her mistress to take up its obligations. Since that mistress is Queen Mab, this makes Dresden's life uncomfortably interesting for awhile - but the deal remains intact.

In the case of demonic contracts, I could easily see contracts being traded, bartered and even stolen amongst the abyssal powers. A character could make a deal with one particular demon and work with him for years, attaining great power, then the next time he beseeches his patron he finds quite a different entity on the other end of the call.


----------



## Grimmjow (Aug 18, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> One thing I don't like is warlocks having to "pray" to their patron for more "favors." Warlocks are arcane casters, not divine casters. Once they have made their pact and paid its price, their power should be entirely their own, to use as they see fit. The idea of having to get down and beg for more power after every encounter is a big turn off for me. I'd play a cleric if I wanted to beg some higher power for spells all the time.




I agree they should find a different way to gain the favors back. I do however love the way they make the pact something that continues to take more from the player as they gain more power.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 18, 2012)

TwoSix said:


> An interesting rule change for the sorcerer would be that they only cast their higher level spells once they've spent a certain amount of willpower.  I like the idea of lower willpower reflecting them tapping more and more into their innate heritage, and I'm in love with the idea of a class transforming itself by spending resources.
> 
> Additionally, it would prevent alpha strikes, instead the sorcerer is more of the clean-up guy.  He spends a couple fights slowly tapping into his power, and at the last desperate fight, he's finally tapped in enough to use his most powerful abilities.



Only if you see sorcerers as blasters, not every sorcerer is going to expend their precious known spells in combat spells, not when they have other means to fight. Also I don't see any problem with a sorcerer spamming his only second level spell over and over if the situation calls for it, and by the time he has more than one second level spell known the wizard already has third level spells. And next leve he is more likely to pick a third level spell instead of a third second level one just to keep pace, basically he is doomed to know only two spells of each level for his whole career, restricting him to only be able to cast his highest level spells by the fifth encounnter of the day that may not even happen is just gimping them for no reason


----------



## Yora (Aug 18, 2012)

Wilders get even less powers with just a new one every two levels, and they still work reasonably well and can be quite fun.
It just requires to have meaningful other class features that synergize with the spells, and to have spells with some versatility. Hold undead and detect chaos would not be examples of this.

Also, given that the dragon disciple gets so potent melee combat abilities, I expect that other sorcerers will have considerably more spells known, spell points, and probably higher magical attack bonus.


----------



## The Shadow (Aug 18, 2012)

Yora said:


> Also, given that the dragon disciple gets so potent melee combat abilities, I expect that other sorcerers will have considerably more spells known, spell points, and probably higher magical attack bonus.




I am inclined to doubt this.  Simply because the weapon and armor proficiencies say "See your bloodline" while the rest comes off a chart.  And if we start changing everything about the class with bloodline, why not just admit they're different classes?

With that said, though, I am really wondering just what the other bloodlines *do* get in exchange for less proficiency?  I think the cleric Domains point the way.

The Sun cleric doesn't get more spells known (other than an extra minor spell), more spells per day, or higher magical attack bonus than the War cleric.  But he does get more powerful domain spells and a powerful Channel Divinity ability.

Other bloodlines may have Sorcerous Powers that focus more on enhancing spellcasting than combat.  *Possibly* they may grant an extra spell or two.  (An extra minor spell could be very welcome to a sorcerer - they only ever get two otherwise!)  Possibly they may grant access to a wider pool of spells.

Any other ideas?


----------



## Yora (Aug 18, 2012)

As it is now, it looks a lot more like psychic warrior than psion (which I now checked, also gain 1 power per level). So one idea would be something that greatly enhances physical abilities like jumping, speed, and dodging.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Aug 18, 2012)

tuxgeo said:


> Hm. You should have to deal with your patron again if you want further clarification about the quests your patron gives you, or if you want it to give you additional quests. And if you go against its wishes, you'll probably have to deal with it again because it will come after you, accusing you of stealing its power.




Sure, if that's the kind of story you want to tell. That said, I'd imagine that not all patrons are even interested in telling their warlocks what to do. Verenestra just wants your beauty. I doubt she cares what you do with the power you got out of the deal. On the other hand, I could see arch demons offering mortals the temptation of power as a means of recruiting followers in the mortal world, and being quite unhappy if the warlock goes rogue. Still, I can see other demons who are confident that the power they grants will corrupt the warlock eventually, and let them go their own way as long as they don't interfere with the demon's own plans.

In any case, those kinds of roleplying consequences are not what I have a problem with. The only part I strongly dislike is how you have to "pray" to your patron to refresh your powers. It's like the warlock doesn't have any real power of his own. So Verenestra gets to permanently steal some of the warlock's beauty, but the power the warlock gets out of the deal isn't even permanent? He has to go back and beg every time it runs out? That's crap.



MarkB said:


> Warlock is a class you can gain at 1st level. How many characters at that level are going to be able to muster up any kind of impressive 'price' that will satisfy some otherworldly being?




The warlock doesn't choose the price. That's a built-in part of the pact's nature. The one example we have so far is a loss of physical beauty. Other pacts will of course have other costs. There really isn't any negotiation going on. The pact is what it is, and I doubt the patron can even change it.



MarkB said:


> To me, it makes more sense that the warlock is entering into a long-term pact, gaining power and favour in return for satisfying the patron being's needs at some future point, or on an ongoing basis. It's an active, two-way agreement that will evolve as the character does.




The patron collects its price from the warlock regardless, and as the warlock's power increases, the patron automatically gets even more from it. Verenestra gets to take more and more of your beauty as you grow in power, whether you have a continuing personal relationship with her or not. There's no getting out of that.



MarkB said:


> In the case of demonic contracts, I could easily see contracts being traded, bartered and even stolen amongst the abyssal powers. A character could make a deal with one particular demon and work with him for years, attaining great power, then the next time he beseeches his patron he finds quite a different entity on the other end of the call.




That's an interesting thought, but shouldn't the warlock have some say in it? I imagine that each archdemon's pact has very different benefits and drawbacks, according to its inner nature. It would really suck for the warlock if his "contract" could just be handed off to someone else and the nature of his powers totally changes.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 19, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The patron collects its price from the warlock regardless, and as the warlock's power increases, the patron automatically gets even more from it. Verenestra gets to take more and more of your beauty as you grow in power, whether you have a continuing personal relationship with her or not. There's no getting out of that.




That's one way to play it. Another would be that it's an ongoing deal, reaffirmed every time power is exchanged. Each time the character beseeches Verenestra, he bargains away a little more of his beauty in return for more of her favour.



> That's an interesting thought, but shouldn't the warlock have some say in it? I imagine that each archdemon's pact has very different benefits and drawbacks, according to its inner nature. It would really suck for the warlock if his "contract" could just be handed off to someone else and the nature of his powers totally changes.




Similar beings would have interest in similar souls, so there might not be too great a change. And for the rest, it could simply be one more pitfall of making deals with such dark entities.

This sort of thing would be mostly a role-playing choice, something to spice up a character's storyline. The character might have no say in it, but the player (in co-operation with the DM) would.


----------



## Tehnai (Aug 19, 2012)

I feel like people are forgetting that balance in 5E is not supposed to be all about combat. I mean, Sorceror is just about as scrappy a class as fighter is. Your job is to hit/burn/freeze monsters and not die while doing so. You have access to no useful rituals, no fancy magic that could be used for anything else than "I DEAL DAMAGE TO YOU!", and the occasional shield or light.

Whereas wizard does have access to the kaboom spells, the wizard is more about finding cool and unexpected ways to bypass the fight altogether, creating magical portals and so on. The sorceror is a combat class, the wizard can do a little bit of everything.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 19, 2012)

Tehnai said:


> I feel like people are forgetting that balance in 5E is not supposed to be all about combat. I mean, Sorceror is just about as scrappy a class as fighter is. Your job is to hit/burn/freeze monsters and not die while doing so. You have access to no useful rituals, no fancy magic that could be used for anything else than "I DEAL DAMAGE TO YOU!", and the occasional shield or light.
> 
> Whereas wizard does have access to the kaboom spells, the wizard is more about finding cool and unexpected ways to bypass the fight altogether, creating magical portals and so on. The sorceror is a combat class, the wizard can do a little bit of everything.




I agree that the wizard's magic has much broader and more creative applications, but people who want to play evoker wizards who make things go boom shouldn't feel completely outmatched. Maybe the best answer is an evocation "arcane tradition" that gives them an edge in spell damage.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 19, 2012)

Tehnai said:


> I feel like people are forgetting that balance in 5E is not supposed to be all about combat. I mean, Sorceror is just about as scrappy a class as fighter is. Your job is to hit/burn/freeze monsters and not die while doing so. You have access to no useful rituals, no fancy magic that could be used for anything else than "I DEAL DAMAGE TO YOU!", and the occasional shield or light.
> 
> Whereas wizard does have access to the kaboom spells, the wizard is more about finding cool and unexpected ways to bypass the fight altogether, creating magical portals and so on. The sorceror is a combat class, the wizard can do a little bit of everything.




At this point, it's probably good to shrink the Sorcerer class to just that role. It cannot have the strategic versatility of the Wizard spell list, otherwise there is a risk that with a good combination of spells the draconic sorcerer ends up like a more flexible Wizard which, when out of batteries, turns into a Fighter (which would be unfair for the Wizard, not for the Fighter).


----------



## Bow_Seat (Aug 19, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> At this point, it's probably good to shrink the Sorcerer class to just that role. It cannot have the strategic versatility of the Wizard spell list, otherwise there is a risk that with a good combination of spells the draconic sorcerer ends up like a more flexible Wizard which, when out of batteries, turns into a Fighter (which would be unfair for the Wizard, not for the Fighter).




Or the other way around. If they make the bloodline decide what section of the wizard spell list that they draw from then you could have a sorcerer with only illusion, utility spells. So long as they don't have the full wizard utility I don't think it will matter too much what subset of the wizard spell list that they draw from.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 19, 2012)

Bow_Seat said:


> Or the other way around. If they make the bloodline decide what section of the wizard spell list that they draw from then you could have a sorcerer with only illusion, utility spells. So long as they don't have the full wizard utility I don't think it will matter too much what subset of the wizard spell list that they draw from.




It might work, yes...

- A draconic heritage sorcerer focused on evocations and energy conjurations.
- A demonic/fiendish heritage sorcerer focused on summoning and shapechanging.
- A fey heritage sorcerer focused on enchantments and illusions.
- A voodoo/spirits heritage sorcerer focused on divinations, necromancy and curses.

Then the problem becomes how not to pollute the PHB with pages and pages of spell lists... (maybe turn the wizard list into a table?)


----------



## Bow_Seat (Aug 19, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> Then the problem becomes how not to pollute the PHB with pages and pages of spell lists... (maybe turn the wizard list into a table?)




the very cheap way of doing this is to just give my arcane type (abjuration, necromancy, illusion, whatever), but then I guess the lists wouldn't feel as tailored as they otherwise would.


----------



## Grimmjow (Aug 19, 2012)

sorcs and warlocks are maybe uncommon classes? maybe that is why they are more powerful than the others, there is suppose to be less of them around?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 20, 2012)

It looks so far like sorcerous origins (why can't they be called bloodlines?) will play almost exactly like cleric domains (except they determine hit dice too, and have those cool bonuses as you drain your Willpower). One "free" spell per spell level that ties you in closely with a particular theme.

Meanwhile, the core sorcerer list is sort of the bluntest of wizard spells. Lots of evocations and abjurations, a few other goodies. 

The draconic origin seems to be the warmage focus. The bonus spells (+2d6 to next attack, block 10 damage, and the inescapable dragon breath probably at 6th level) are largely based around that focus.

A fey origin might be the "shadow-mage" focus with teleportation and such, like the fey-pact warlock. Light armor, finesse weapons, some stealthy powers. The other two possibilities mentioned in the flavor text - "exposure to a powerufl spell or planar phenomenon" and "a malign intrusion into the sorcerer's mind" - sound like wild magic and... possession, maybe? Wild magic could be the evocation-heavy option for people who want to wear robes and burn things, and I really have no idea what a possessed sorcerer would be like. More charms and divination maybe? (Am I missing an option from 4e or something here?)

Anyway, the fey origin might threaten to intrude on the fey-pact warlock's space (or the rogue's), and the wild mage could be a rival for an evoker wizard, just as the draconic sorcerer makes fighters nervous. But in each case, if they move carefully, WOTC could create a unique but not overpowered option.


----------



## 1of3 (Aug 20, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> It looks so far like sorcerous origins (why can't they be called bloodlines?) will play almost exactly like cleric domains.




The next ones are probably Chaos and Storm to welcome the 4e fans. Those are not really bloodlines, but happen by accident or spontaneous mutation.


----------



## MoonSong (Aug 20, 2012)

I think that some good bloodlines/origins could be: 

Draconic
Wild/Chaos
Storm
Fey
Celestial
Infernal
Abyssal
Shadow
Elemental


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 20, 2012)

Grimmjow said:


> sorcs and warlocks are maybe uncommon classes? maybe that is why they are more powerful than the others, there is suppose to be less of them around?




I was thinking the same, that they would slap a "rare" label on those two classes.

But I don't see what difference it makes, except giving an excuse to the designers if the class is a bit too wonky or more powerful than average. 

If it's in the PHB, players will just demand it to be playable, and all players will have the PHB. Of course the DM can always rule zero and bla bla...



ZombieRoboNinja said:


> It looks so far like sorcerous origins (why can't they be called bloodlines?)




I prefer "bloodlines" myself, although I understand that it implies to be somewhat hereditary, while "origins" possibly include non-hereditary sources such as exposure to extraordinary magical events, being born on an outer plane, being influenced (blesses/cursed) by an outsider, or just a plain random occurrence.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 21, 2012)

One thing about origins or pacts, is they probably only have enough room for only so many in the core PHB.  The rest beyond those will have to be saved for the inevitable splat books.


----------



## godfear (Aug 21, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> I had just assumed at first that the level 3 power used a favor. If not, it would mean the warlock can never be sneak attacked, so I'm guessing it DOES take a favor.




I thought it was clarified that having both Advantage and Disadvantage cancels out only the extra die roll. Things that key off having Advantage (they specified Sneak Attack) still function. Of course, now I can't find the bloody reference. :-/


----------

