I want to see a reality dating show-style campaign where level 1 warlocks compete for the affection of several potential patrons leading up to the big reveal of the pairings when they reach level 3.
I had an idea for a campaign setting once that people who can channel divine magic were special, so clerics were like free agents that different gods competed for as their representatives on the mortal plane.
Yeah, I have more issues with the vibe of sorcerers not getting their subclass until 3. Like you start as a normal sorcerer with magic from somewhere, then suddenly after using your powers for a while develop dragon scales, or your magic starts summoning unicorns and turning you into a potted plant? Why didn't it do that before? The magic is from your BLOOD.
Honestly sorcerers imo need to be totally different. Your magic should be explicitly tied to your "Source". 5e and 5.5 have successively taken sorcerers further away from being unique to just "jock wizards"
@@garion046 the way I see it, it’s like if my DNA there is a long line of balding men in the family does that mean I need to go bald at age 5, or 10, or 20? Or can it manifest at a later time, like my 30’s or 40’s? Same for those dragon scales etc. your power comes from whatever the “source”’is, but some things just don’t come online until later? If it’s in your blood why don’t you start off being able to cast 9th level spells?
House rule: You can pick your patron at level 1 and not get the abilities until you have proven your commitment at level 3. That way the backstory still works.
This. I was concerned too, and maybe it's because I'm stressed about everything else in the world and my personal life, but now I'm more indifferent to the whole thing. This looks like a good and reasonable solution.
Im honestly just using 5e for warlocks. I see no changes that make me want to switch. You can easily just run One for martials (excluding paladins) and run 5e for everyone else, maintaining the weapon proficiencies and such
I’m imagining a Warlock Hiring Agency, where you apply and get a little bit of power while the agency shops your contract around to interested patrons. You get your subclass at level 3 when they send you a letter saying that [Patron] picked up your contract and you get the powers then.
That just makes me think the whole game should be comprised of "New hires" of a company that needed an adventuring group and turned to a temp agency to create it xD
POTENTIAL PATRON: "And what you drew you to The Golden Legion of the Damned?" *Warlock begins sweating as he tries to BS an answer having done no research about this patron.*
I feel like a lot of this confusion could be solved by just giving some examples in the flavour text. Having a few lines about ‘Your Warlock may scrounge bits of power from stray texts before finding out the true source of this power, and pledging themselves fully to their patron, who has been leaving those pages behind to find one worthy of serving him. Another Warlock may seek out their patron and know their face from the start, but must earn the right to use the abilities uniquely given to those chosen by their patron.’ Giving a couple examples of how the story may work for the mechanics would help so much, instead of just a single kind of obtuse solution.
Honestly, I'd probably just have it kind of like the patron just giving them a sample of their power before they fully pledge themselves. Kind of like the freebies in a mobile game. If they don't like the patron they have, they can leave them for someone else who represents them better.
Yeah I like the idea of them trying to bake in some Spider Man style power awakening into your leveling but without guidelines it feels awkward and kind of like an MMO, where you just don't question stuff like that at all because usually game mechanics come first in systems like that. I don't know how I feel about patron courtship or anything like that. I guess I've always felt like warlocks were created by extraordinary circumstance more often than studious attempts at patron contact. I guess the real answer is "whatever you feel is best" of course, but yeah!
At level 1 the DM can ask a Warlock for a flavour vibe, which way they're likely to go so roleplay can kick in straight away. Should the player change their mind by level 3, what's to say the Patron you sold your soul to didn't trade your contract for something else, shifting your owner and allowing more interesting opportunities. You could double down on this if the player dislikes their choice later, offer a rotating character subclass later on as if they're a daytrade stock with rolling the trees each day, competing and conflicting requests between different sub-patrons. Recursive hosts bidding for you each day or an angry contract holder if you're not willing to enact the bidders requests.
When we saw these changes comming in UA the response from everyone at my table was "well we'll be starting all our campaigns at lvl 3 from now on". Frankly for almost every class it's the sub class I want to play, I really don't give a damn about the so called "base class". Like if i want to play a Wizard it's because i want to be an illusionist and playing at lower levels I'm just sitting their waiting to get my subclass features so I can actually be the character i wanted to play in the first place. Now that all happens at lvl 3 I don't see the point in any lvl below that.
the first three levels are for playing the starter kit modules- stuff that's on rails to get new players up to speed. anyone who's done much TTRPG should start at 3 or 4 so they don't miss the dopamine rush of the level 5 upgrades being earned.
You dont need a houserule for this.Flavor and backstory (other than origin feats/backgrounds) are free. You can *know* your patron, you just dont get *mechanical game effects* until later. Clerics *know* who they worship and their domain, they just get *mechanics* later.
That's certainly one option, but I honestly love that there are other choices now. My next warlock will absolutely have no clue who her soul is sworn to.
@@fredslipknot9 Nah. Subclass should be based off when you can access spellcasting. Casting at level 1 (Warlocks, Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics) = subclass at 1st level Casting at level 2 (Rangers, Paladins) = subclass at 2nd level Non-caster or option to pickup casting at 3rd level (Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, Monks) = subclass at 3rd level
I get the pun but unfortunately it's got an umlaut and is pronounced braut. And that's without the consideration that brat as a buzzword already peaked.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue Ehm... no ? Bratwurst has no Umlaute. Then it would be written, like 'Brätwürst' ? But the 'a' is long, as oposed to the short 'a' in english brat. Grüße aus Deutschland : D
6:00 Yes, this is my biggest gripe whenever someone - often new DMs - has legit questions or criticisms about DnD and certain features or rules. The proposed solution often follow something like "It's the DMs responsibility to...", "Flavour is free", "Just homebrew x or y" - yes, this is true, as long as the DM and the table agree, we can basically reflavour and homebrew anything we want or make certain ruling if the rules are unclear or breaks due oversights from the design team. DnD can be played anyway the table likes, no one will care or notice if you're not playing exactly according to PHB. And it is great that so many creative and talented people are putting out homebrew classes and systems for you to incorporate into your game, if you want to expand on certain aspects or tweak the game in a certain way. But that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have to: it's sloppy design! If a boardgame requires you to look up ruling on forums, everyone would agree that the rulebook is poorly written. If a videogame requires mods from the get go to play properly, that's a legit thing to criticise. But for some reason DnD gets a freepass because "the DM can just change it, if they don't like it"? WoC has a professional design team working on an IP worth millions of dollars: the base product should be tight, properly play tested and not introduce these grey areas for DMs to fix.
Homebrew should adress preferences, different goals and players, not fix the base game. Some small details with special builds or rare rules is one thing, but the core rules should just work
From a pure mechanics standpoint, I always saw it like “you have your patron, cleric domain, sorcerous origin, etc. from the beginning. You just don’t get anything unique from that interaction until a higher level”. A sorcerer is still a sorcerer, even if their draconic bloodline looks just like wild magic until they use their breath weapon for the first time.
This. Mechanic vs Flavor. You could make the claim about almost every class, not just Warlock, Sorcerer, and Cleric. Gloomstalker and Fey Wanderer would typically have very different backgrounds. Beastmasters I've played with have wanted their companion in their background. Circle of the Sea Druid is probably going to work the ocean as a major entity their entire lives. Nothing changed flavor wise, only mechanics.
@@padenal6069 That's why this whole argument is so ridiculous. I've played a few different characters and we've always started at level 1. I always build my character already knowing what subclass they're going to be, so that way I incorporate flavor into them ahead of time to match it. I'm going to be an arcane archer fighter? Then in the first two levels, my fighter is going to be an archer as I build towards it over those beginning levels. Most of the classes I've played all got their subclass at level 3, so people complaining about this just seem a bit lazy to me (or spoiled) lol This also curbs lazy multiclass dips a bit, so now people have to work towards their level 3 abilities.
@@mekrot1as a fellow enjoyer of looking into my character’s future, I do think the argument has some merit . Not every player creates characters the same way and there’s not one single correct way to do so. Having introduced the game to a fair bit of newbies some people have a really strong idea of their character and others prefer to feel it out during creation/play and it’s fascinating seeing how different folks go about it. I agree that if you pre plan your next few levels it bypasses the issue but I don’t think you should Need to make a level 3 character in order to play your level 1 character
@@joffrerey you’re right that not every player makes their character the same way, but I really do think that moving all of the subclasses to level 3 is a nothing burger. I’m not even a huge fan of the new DnD rules overall, but this change seemed so natural and it’s weird to me that it can easily be fixed by roleplaying and it’s the role players that don’t like the change. I’m a DM and I’ve ran games for plenty of new players and many of them are confused by the subclasses at level 1 or 2 and I’ve known more than a few that felt locked in too early in the game and wanted to change their subclass by level 3 once they knew how the game worked better.
IMO the simplest thing is to say the PC DOES know who their patron is at Level 1, they just didn't "deepen their connection" strongly enough to start unlocking specific subclass features until Level 3.
I think this way lets you play in various ways tbh, you can either know who they are from the start, not know and solve that mystery by level 3, have only the DM know the identity but you find out the type at level 3 etc. Surely this just leaves it open to RP however the player and DM want to.
This is the most obvious take yeah. I’m not sure what all the uproar is for. Paladins have been taking their oath at 1 and “cementing” it at 3 and I’ve never thought that was a problem.
Legitimately, unless someone is brand spanking new to the game and starts at level 1, I don't think anyone is going to play a warlock without knowing who their patron is beforehand unless they choose to do so on purpose
@@plannedtuna8293 I've always thought that was weird. I much prefer taking the Oath immediately or at least when you get the spellcasting/abilities that come from said Oath.
To be honest, I think WotC had the assumption that only new players are starting at level 1. I think they got a lot of data/feedback that many campaigns start at level 3. This makes the warlock change make sense. If you're a veteran who is going to have a good idea of who their patron is, you're starting at level 3 with your subclass already picked. If you're a new player, you don't have to answer these extra questions until you level up a couple times. This is *mostly* speculation, but not entirely; in one of their videos, they talked about making changes based on "the way people *actually* play the game". They may have even mentioned starting at level 3, but I don't remember what video it was to go back and check.
I totally agree with you. And I know a lot of veterans don't like the idea that level 1 and 2 are seen as these tutorial levels for new players, but I think the game needs them to be. At least somewhat. Something in this game needs to be tailored to people who have no understanding of ttrpgs. I would love for levels 1 and 2 to be more interesting, but I'm also cool with knowing that not everything can be made to how I, one person who's experienced at the game, wants to play.
As an old man, (I started with AD&D) I HATE the idea of starting any level other than 1. Unless it's 0 level, I've done that a few times and it's fun. It's like starting a computer game with part already complete. I've DONE it, joining a group at level 13 to replace a 'beloved' DM's PC. It feel inorganic to me. Thematically, just discovering who you Patron is down the line feels like you signed a contract without looking at it. Skipping ahead also feels wrong. I'm going to stick with my 3.5 Ed homebrew Warlock class.
I have been running it as "you know what your subclass is going to be" for every class from day 1. It impacts almost nothing. The problem is the "mystery patron" idea, not the subclass at level 3. The Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Ranger & Rogue know what they want to be when they grow up. The Paladin knows what he's swearing his life to. The Cleric knows who's answering his prayers, The Druid & the Wizard know what their mentor/master is training them to do, and the warlock has a pretty good idea who he just made a deal with. The sorcerer may or may not know who his daddy is but thats his problem
Perfect. I think they tried to "solve" something that didn't need solving: they came up with the mistery patron idea because they knew people used to 5e would find it strange to start at lvl 3. But without this, wouldn't have been anything wrong with the level 3 thing. I really think it just has to do with being used to it, more than being about the logic, or lore or anything else. People are used to it, find it strange that it changed. I hardly doubt it that anyone without previous knowledge of 5e, starting with the 2024's book, will look at the classes that changed to lvl 3 and be all "wow, it kind doesn't make sense that this dude only get his specific powers on level 3 like the others, it should be on lvl 1 or 2". When i started D&D, coming from other games, it was on 5e. And it never made sense to me that the classes varied the starter level for their subclasses, and everytime someone tried to explain it to me that it was this was because it MADE SENSE i always thought or argued many ways that it makes just as much sense as it would on level 3 as the others. The same way the game has "gamification" of the powers the patron gives you basing it on levels, like "ok, now on lvl X you proved to me that you are worth some more of my powers, take it", it can have it in the same way for "ok, we made a pact, prove it to me you are worth it and i'll give you powers on lvl 3". Makes really no difference in terms of history or lore or etc. It's just game mechanics in reality that is changing.
@BrunoFernandes-ty7mf the concept doesn't work thematically with how D&D is set up, but it's meant to be "when you're that low down, there isn't a noticeable difference between a warlock or a sorcerer of one patron/lineage or another. This would work better if D&D was more gritty fantasy than power fantasy.
@@alexandercross9081 i think it works pretty well, but may be because i'm not all that deep into what D&D intent is and always played/DM'ed with a very loosely concept of fantasy genre. Maybe because started with 5e only a few years ago.
3:12 Wow, Warlock was already the character class that said “I make questionable life choices”, but now they flat out have no idea who the 🤬 they’re selling their life to or what they’ll get in return. 😂
I mean, Strahd Von Zarovich made a deal with a formless being he believed was Death to murder his brother and drink his blood, in exchange for fairly nebulous rewards. So a fantasy being making a deal with an unknown power because they're promised power isn't that far fetched.
Experienced players and dungeon masters will simply ignore this nonsense, but it really does illustrate how little conscious thought is being exercised at Wizards these days. Truly unfortunate. And I do worry about the impact of instructions like this (because that is what they are, game instructions) on new players.
@@jzoshak9571 As someone who's a pretty new player - the impact to me feels like I'd be less put off trying out warlock if I didn't have to lock in my level 3 subclass via patron selection when I didn't even know how to manage the earlier levels yet. Plus not having to be too locked-in on all the surrounding lore of every patron type or exactly how I want to play a character. It feels pretty freeing to have a couple of levels of figuring stuff out before you lock into a subclass, especially without much experience with spellcasters or roleplaying.
I feel like "You don't know your patron" is kinda the antithesis of how the Warlock/Patron relationship is. Sure, I'm certain some characters are offered a "deal with the devil" from a shadowy figure, but this seems to be forcing a "I suddenly have magical powers after being contacted by SOMETHING or SOMEONE and I have no idea who they are, why they chose me, or if I agree with them morally" plot into every campaign, unless the DM/player just ignores it. Yes, if the player/DM agrees to that, it's a great storytelling and narrative world-building device. But I agree with Ginny that it doesn't make sense most of the time and is a bad design decision. It reeks of "We tried to streamline character creation" which is fine, but they also seem to have gone a bit too-far in that direction and have stripped a lot of narrative reasoning as well.
To me, choosing a subclass at lv 3 doesn't mean they haven't chosen a patron yet. It means up to lv 3 ALL patrons have the same effect, so all warlocks are indistinguishable. They still derive their power from their particular patron, however.
From a gameplay perspective though, how is that any different from not having chosen a patron? If you don't have a patron until level 3 or all patrons play the same until level 3, they are all going to feel the same.
@@TypicalJoker94 oh, they certainly do. I meant more from the roleplaying perspective. From the gameplay perspective, I've very rarely played in D&D games where players were lower than lvl 3. With this new book, I see even less of a reason to ever play below level 3. Then again, say, an entry level kitchen mook at a local family Mexican restaurant vs. an entry level kitchen mook at a Michelin star Italian restaurant: do they really have that vast a difference in their job? They both clean dishes, fetch stuff for others, etc. Gameplay wise, it's like they didn't even choose a restaurant they're working at.
@@lemonZzzzsI believe the book even recommends experienced players start at level 3. Assuming no multi-classing, everyone would have their subclasses anyway. Game designers are saying that starting at level 1 is designed for beginners, therefore it makes sense to keep the classes simple and consistent between classes, as for new groups it could be confusing how some classes just get generic stuff and others got subclasses.
@@TypicalJoker94 You could consider it as strengthening the pact until it solidifies at level 3 enough to also grant patron boons, rather than just spells and invocations. I have no problem with that idea, but the idea that you *automatically* don't know who your patron is until level 3 throws a lot of possible backstories and characters out the window.
Standardizing all the subclasses to starting at level 3 significantly reduces the likelihood of single-level dips. Yes Hexblade, I'm looking at you. Fighter is still a great single level dip though, but I'm OK with that.
A useful guide to other classes: a warlock with a non-demanding force of nature or genetic patron (Sorcerer), a warlock who begs (Cleric), a swordy warlock who really begs (Paladin), a warlock in collective partnership with their nature patron (Druid), the same warlock but with a worse deal to 'preserve their autonomy' (Ranger), a warlock whose patron is their own workaholic nature (Wizard), a warlock whose patron is Etsy (Artificer), a warlock whose patron is art (Bard), a warlock whose patron is ego (also Bard), a pact of the blade warlock who's out of spell slots (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian), & any other pact warlock who's out of spell slots (Monk).
I think the mystery patron is a fun idea, but I don't like how the 2024 rules make it seem like the only idea. Like, I think making a deal directly with a demon or fey that your character meets is a far more prominent and easily understood story archetype, but the 2024 class writeup and subclass progression pushes you away from that.
I think the strangness that comes along with the lvl 3 Subclass for all, is that some Classes needed to have a Subclass to even be a Class. Giving the character agency (not the player) is awkward. Warlock and Sorcerer always felt like you were unlocking something beyond your control, but now it feels like you could sit in camp and contemplate a patron or bloodline.
My thought: If I remember correctly, 4e Warlocks were "students of forbidden lore" or some such. Moving that up to 5e2024, your first two levels are picking up magical secrets that involve tapping into otherwordly powers and learning how to make a pact with them for even greater power, maybe even learning about different options during play through dusty tomes and such. The powers of the first two levels still come from an eldritch source but not a specific one that can make demands of you. When you level up to 3rd, you have to either Do The Thing (ie pick a patron and roleplay the pact, whatever that looks like) or multiclass. It would be nice if the book actually said something like that, though.
That's true in 5e as well. Idk about 5.5. I know a lot of people didn't do this, but loosing your pact doesn't cut you off from any of your powers in raw it just stops you from being able to keep leveling warlock and maybe breaks your pact boon. Maybe if your patron were powerful enough they could curse you as revenge, but like you are not a spooky cleric.
@@mycenaeangal9312, RAW, yeah. In practice (and in CR, the default example), I've mostly seen it played that the power and the connection use the same "wire". Cut the wire and you lose both.
To me you should still know what you want to make a pact with. If you're a LG warlock hellbent on destroying undead you're not going to be interested in forming a pact with a fiend, meaning you're not going to read up on it. Maybe you give it a cursory glance in a "pacts for dummies" primer, but you're not going to do hardcore research into how exactly to contact and make a pact with a fiend. At first level you know the types of beings you can make pacts with, and you've looked up how to tap into the most basic of powers from the source you choose. Second level sees you progressing along this line, and third level is when you formally sign yourself over. You should still know the path you want to take at the start though. Not knowing feels like you used WIS as a dump stat for your character, and they're happy getting power from wherever, as long as they get power.
@@BobBobson What if your village is being overrun by undead and a fiend shows up and offers you the power to defend it? Do you say "no thanks, I'd rather have a Celestial patron" and wait for one to show up while your relatives get eaten? Not every Warlock follows the plan you laid out. Sometimes Patrons are the ones who choose. Sometimes Warlocks don't even fully realise they made a pact.
Its an interesting shift I'll give it that, receiving spells and invocation receiving the Patron is a little bit of putting the cart before the horse, but I can also see the narrative potential. The initial spells and invocations are part of the deal making process, a free trial, a seduction, power given on credit, and then 3rd level hits and the patron meets the warlock properly to bind the deal. Something along those lines, it definitely requires talking to the GM but thats always been true for Warlocks
Exactly, I don't see how you have only two options as a DM due to this change. I think your angle is great, I can also see some kind of indirect communication for the first couple levels, maybe depending on the pact-boon invocation my player uses. A sword with a cryptic message, A strange creature that keeps talking about the will of their master, An ancient tome that misses pages and seems to "tug" the player to a specific location etc... And if my player already knows which patron they eventually want to choose than there isn't a problem at all. I also somebody suggest a sort of patron dating show concept, which depending on the tone of the campaign could be awesome!
I've already discussed this with my various d&d groups and we've decided to cut the Gordian knot and just start all new campaigns at level 3. The last new player who joined us wound up creating a level 8 multiclass bard/druid for her first character so if we can talk a newbie through that process and still create a character that doesn't feel underpowered we can talk any future new players through starting at level 3
I really fundamentally dislike the idea of a game system just flat out saying that the first two levels of their game are by default not interesting enough to be considered worth playing. It feels like if that's the case, you should change those first two levels to be more satisfying.
@@velemamba260Not even interesting but also... Not balanced. The fact that level 1 and 2 have such ludicrously small health pools means they locked them into this area where they're useless because. It's so hard to balance something when you could theoretically have a player at 6 or below HP.
Got me thinking about how it plays for multiclass warlocks. Multiclassing into warlock gives a chance for the patron story to unfold better than in 2014 rules. Multiclass warlocks that never reach W3 never know their patron (that's strange)? As you said, getting DM and player on same page is crucial to telling the story they both want.
the thing i like the least about this is that i feel like i'm being shoehorned into one type of dynamic with this.. the ''mysterious patron'' deal is such a specific story vibe. I mean what if i did want to have a first meeting with my patron at a fully lit conference table, why not. The warlock should accomodate both scenarios and any number more Maybe the mysterious thing should just be a subclass in itself. Lvl 1 you pick your ''Mysterious Patron subclass'', lvl 2 you get a vague sign or a riddle, and as a subclass feature, at lvl 3 you discover your patron and retroactively pick the subclass features of it
Yeah I agree, that's what doesn't sit well with me, I get we love mysteries but I feel like forcing the mystery approach really reduces the other options for a Warlock backstory/pact, like maybe I do want my character to know who they were making a pact with for a multitude of reasons! I hate the shoehorning happened in 2024 warlocks as well
I don’t know if you have to go with the mysterious patron vibe. You could very easily reflavor it to be that your character has known their patron for a long time and it’s only after they’ve sufficiently proven their worth that their patron grants them more specific abilities and stuff
@@FoxerBoxerNaaniwa absolutely that's the beauty of dnd, its an open ended game at the end of the day that we can just customize and reflavor to our heart's content i just wish we would move away from having to butt heads with the oficial text is all. If not for principle alone, then just for hanging less expectations on new players that might defer to the textbook for how to flavor their classes. But you are super right, it's not hard to reflavor it
"Mysterious patron" was literally word-for-word in the 2014 version. So basically people have been complaining about a version of the 2014 warlock that didn't exist rules as written because almost everyone collectively homebrewed warlocks to have more involvement with their patron. Let me get this straight: The whole "being in contact with your patron" didn't exist before. It exists now in the 2024 ruleset where you get a class feature similar to Divine Intervention where you can call your patron, but in 2014 ruleset there was no such thing. Being able to talk to your patron was a thing that was popularised from things like Critical Roll and Dimension 20. There was NO obligation from the DM to even have your patron acknowledge you. Now the DM has to at least give you a bare minimum.
House rule that I might use: treat it like Final Fantasy, where you start with a basic class and then level up to an advanced class at level 3. So the Warlock is an Occultist at levels 1 and 2, dabbling with powers they barely understand, and then at level 3 they meet one of those powers and enter into a pact with it. A Paladin starts as a Squire; a Wizard starts as an Apprentice. Etc. 1st and 2nd level are already survival horror before you get to the heroic fantasy...
IMO, the source of your power, whether that's your sorcerer bloodline, your warlock patron, your deity, or your oath, or whatever else is could be, that should ABSOLUTELY be chosen at lvl . That does not mean subclasses shouldn't be chosen later, I also think that they should. I would argue that your source of power shouldn't be your sublass at all, your sublass should be your desired way to utilize that power. In the case of warlocks, I'd say they should have used the existing pact options as the subclasses, albeit versions that get further fleshed out.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you called this out as "sloppy design". And the "Why?" you ask later in the video has a sadly straightforward answer: This is what you get when you lay off big chunks of your writing staff to save costs and deliver short-term gains to your shareholders. Right, Hasbro? These issues could have been addressed with some editing oversight, and more contextual information to help players and DMs navigate these decisions, but the writers and editors of this edition didn't take any time for that. Integrating gameplay mechanics with narrative elements is always a gamble: you build flavor and reinforce worldbuilding elements at the expense of player freedom to choose whatever mechanical elements they want regardless of roleplaying implications. As an example, a fiend-pact warlock ties mechanical elements (temporary hp when foes perish) with narrative elements (a connection to the lower planes), while choosing your weapon style as a fighter says virtually nothing about the narrative of your character. While I understand the value in this sort of baked-in narrative flavor, I generally prefer options that allow for mechanical and narrative flexibility for my players, and I think a similar approach SHOULD have been taken for any class option that you choose after level 1. For warlocks, I would have re-named and re-flavored these abilities to make them pact-neutral, and probably called the ability something like "deepened pact." There's no necessary reason gaining temporary HP needs to be tied to the lower planes-couldn't a fey or otherworldly patron also reward their warlock for claiming souls? Couldn't a fiendish patron imbue their warlock with the ability to frighten or charm? etc. I know there's some flavor lost with this approach, but it would resolve the dissonance here between players' narrative expectations and how the mechanics reflect and restrict that narrative. P.S.: Personal pet peeve, but "begging the question" is a logical fallacy involving circular reasoning. It's not the same as "raising" the question.
you have a patron at level one but quote "you do not who or what they are" this destroys the concept of making a pact with a supernatural entity for power... how are the pacts made if you are unaware of them? Glad one of my best house rules is all subclasses are chosen at level 1. I mean how many players play d&d without picking their subclass first to define their character concept.
One thing I especially liked about the 2014 warlock was that a lot of wannabe-minmaxers would take just one or two levels of warlock to get eldritch blast and agonizing blast, but because the patron was chosen at level 1, I as the DM still got a whole new, extremely powerful NPC to play around with and interweave in the story. You get yourself a nice cantrip, I get a knife made of emotional trauma that will hang over your head for the rest of the campaign. In a sense, making a pact was tempting, just like a pact should be! So yeah, I much prefer the idea of picking subclasses at level 1 for classes where it makes sense to. I feel like they made the change to avoid overwhelming new players with too many choices, but those are the kinds of choices a new player should absolutely be presented with imo. It's a choice about your character's identity and story, not some crunchy decision about what fighting style you want your fighter to have.
They didn't make the choice to keep from overwhelming new players. They made the choice to make things more uniform between all classes. But they did so with out thinking through the ramifications of this uniformity. It would have been better to make the subclass chosen at 1st level for all classes, rather than forcing nonsense onto classes that it doesn't make sense for just for the sake of uniformity.
@@spamfilter32 eh I would've been fine with some classes getting subclasses at level 1 and others at level 2, level 3 was always a terrible level to tie to subclasses and should never have become the standard
@PhalisoBringerOfDoom my point wasn't thst 1st level had to be the way and the only way, only that if Hasbro insisted that all classes get subclasses at the same time, than 1st lvl is more sensicle than 3rd. But like you, I am fine with different classes getting subclasses at different levels as is current.
@seagullspit6048I feel like comments like this are what perpetuate misinformation about subclasses that aren’t nearly as powerful as people make them out to be. When I chose one, the DM planned for it and we talked about it openly. Had a good balance in combat. It’s really not that big of a deal.
I like the thought that the character chooses and know's who their Patron is at level 1, but the Patron doesn't give them the subclass until you've shown you've "earned" it. A.k.a. level 3 after they've been able to see what you've been able to do with a fraction of the power gained. Good narrative flavor!
Exactly. Same with Paladin oaths. You still have to earn it, easy in-world explanaition. Sorcerers need time to get their inherited powers kicking off, like the X-Men waiting for their mutant puberty. Martial classes still work on their form, etc. I am fully in team 'choose your subclass at character creation', for gameplay- AND roleplay-reasons !
Or ever the more scary thing of they dont know who their patron is but they are getting power from it till it reveals themselves to the player. One of my players said to me "all I know as a character is that there is some fiendish creature that i've struck a bargain with and which devil made the bargain is up to you" and that honestly led to a crazy campaign hook and plot.
You mean you don't like the idea of your character signing themselves away to something entirely unknown, then having that unknown being jump out of a cake at level 3?
Idea: DM brings in ALL patron types and rps them trying to seduce you into their employ. An archfey might offer powers of wonder and beauty while a fiend might offer you powers for revenge or to achieve a goal the player might have. This gives the player options upon reaching level 3 and explains why the warlock has very basic powers until then, getting their powers fueled by multiple beings trying to win them over.
I think the best approach is to let the player not know / let them take their time to decide who their patron is until level 3. A player who is new and genuinely wants to "feel out" their character probably isn't gonna feel like something is missing if the DM doesn't involve their patron during those first few sessions; and a player who actually wants their patron to be directly involved in the story probably knows who their patron is well in advance.
Yeah, but doesn't that mean you have to present them with options? That kind of takes over the plot for a while, all these otherworldly things sending unsolicited ads or some junk. Better to figure out ahead of time what you want and then have the subplot of hearing that whisper or discovering something in a tome.
@@gbprime2353 Not necessarily- for the player who doesn't know what they want their patron to be, the DM can say they "stumbled upon a sketchy ritual in an old book" or something. No direct contact with a patron is necessary until the patron can actually be identified. The player doesn't have to decide beforehand.
@@ronnygeis895 That's certainly one way to do it, but that works best if the player has no preference between angelic, demonic, fey, or the other kinds of patrons out there. The FLAVOR of the PC becomes up to the DM to decide, and that's kind of the shortcoming that Our Lady of Too Many Dice is pointing out.
@@vukkulvar9769 which I normally already do, lol. But that doesn't solve any issues for newer groups starting at 1. Which is really what this whole thing is about. As an experienced DM I'll house rule it without issue
I dont really see the issue, it's not like it's a random roll for what your patron is, you pick it. It's just that there isn't individuality in the class till lvl 3 which makes sense, cause a patron isn't going to give you their true power starting out. You get the general power package for interns, as you haven't really gotten their true attention yet. This change adds some new roleplay potential for hitting lvl 3 since that's when you finally get the patrons attention.
I think the ludonarrative dissonance is the worst for Sorcerers: their innate magic comes from a unique source, but somehow that doesn't manifest until they've become pretty good at casting spells, up to that point they cast them just like everyone else, somehow...
It isn't a problem for just warlocks, and was also a problem in 2014 for some classes (paladin): what should the expectations be for a character who only ever takes one or two levels of warlock? Their patron stays shadowy and undefined forever?
Haven’t finished the video but what I would do is, Warlock: you get a small amount of power after making a deal with a patron but have to do a small task to prove yourself before they give you a true piece of their power. Sorcerer: You always knew that you had a strange magic inside of you, but scared to harness it and discover what it is you held back from training it. Due to recent events, you have to strengthen that magic which means finding out what that magic actually is. Cleric: Before you have approval to gain the core benefits of the deity you follow, you have to learn the basics of being a cleric. When you hit a certain milestone you’ll be permitted to begin learning the abilities that come with worshipping your chosen deity.
But that's not waiting to choose the subclass, especially for the warlock. Is your character making a pact with some random something in the universe and hoping it turns out in their favor? It doesn't feel right. Sure, maybe you don't learn who your specific patron is until level 3, but you should know if they're a Fiend, Celestial, etc. right from the start, meaning you know the subclass, but not the patron. The same goes for the cleric. You have to learn the basics of being a cleric for which domain? War is not going to be the same as Trickery. You have your subclass at level 1, then spend levels 1 and 2 learning the ropes, and at level 3 you devote yourself to a specific deity associated with that domain. You know your subclass from the start, not at level 3.
@@BobBobson There's never been any part of warlock that said the character knows the SPECIFIC patron, that was always a choice by players. It gives examples of who such patrons might be for each type but there's nothing that says you know their identity. A level 1 warlock could have heard that there was power to be attained by making a deal in an old temple and the being that responds doesn't reveal their identity, or conceals their fiendish form behind an illusion of an angel etc etc Not every warlock gets to sit down at a table and make introductions with an incredibly powerful patron to make their deal. Warlocks don't even need to align with their patron's goals and are sometimes sought out by those beings to make a deal rather than the other way around. The idea that "all warlocks should know their patron from level 1" is just as bad as "no warlocks should know their patron at level 1".
My thoughts regarding patrons is that you don't need to limit your choice based on an archetype. I had a player that wanted Cthulhu as a patron, but wasn't in love with Great Old One. With a bit of flavour, we modified the thematics of Undead to match their vision for Cthulhu. Not necessarily a one size fits all, but can open up options a bit. And gives them a bit of freedom when they eventually reach level three. Regardless, I don't love the level three subclass choice across the board.
I honestly would kind of prefer that your patron can be anyone you want, and your subclass and powers are just a specific set of boons that you get regardless of who gives them to you and are not tied to a specific type of patron. Sort of in the same vein that your pact boons are not patron-specific. So for example, rather than Hexblade being explicitly tied to sentient weapons from Shadowfell, it's just a set of powers that a martially-inclined warlock might request or receive from their patron.
@@jordanw2741 I'd agree with you, but there certainly should be some options available to only certain patron types. Like it would be weird for a fiend patron to grant you powerful light magic and healing powers. Abilities for Warlocks are really just a collection of mechanics anyways, and flavor is free, so unless something has to be completely twisted end over end until it doesn't make sense anymore, I also support making things fit toward a preferred patron, even if the subclass isnt the usual for that patron type.
The only thing giving people their subclasses at lvl 3 accomplishes is declaring that level 3 is the new level 1, because I don’t know a single DM who is going to be like “Yeah a cleric/sorcerer/warlock who doesn’t have their subclass on the outsset totally makes sense." Which has the side effect that now there’s efectively only 17 levels in the game if you do that. I could see that “the patron is a mystery” thing working, but has the unintended consequence of forcing a story beat on a level 1 player that maybe they don’t want and if you’re playing a campaign where everyone is level 1 you are forced into that plot beat. Additionally, with sorcerers, there is the added complication that your character doesn’t really decide their subclass, they’re born with it. I could see maybe a solution where you were an orphan and unsure what your lineage is, but again that forces you into a discovery plot beat that maybe you don’t want.
How does the monk not knowing their tradition until level 3 make any more sense then cleric? The barbarian suddenly remembering that their rage is about a deep connection with a god? Entirely reasonable. Sorc not knowing which outer planes being their great great grandpapa had a wild night with? inconceivable. Any of the martial classes that get a new stat requirement when they get a subclass have always needed you to pick their subclass effectively at level 1. If you have some experience you should start at level 3 but it "not making sense" mostly has to do with what you got used to with 2014 and not actual logic.
@@jellewijckmans4836 I just gave examples that came to me at the moment. You’re right, monk not knowing their tradition until lvl 3 doesn’t make sense either. I’m not saying those are the only examples this doesn’t work narratively. I don’t really know what your issue is with what I said though you seem to be really indignant about it because it sounds like you agree. Regarding sorcerers, you don’t necessarily need to know the details of where you got your magic from, but you’d think growing up you’d at least have a good idea of the general direction your powers come from, right? Like you’d probably be able to figure out if you were an Abarrant Mind versus wild magic sorcerer pretty early on right?
I'm a DM and not choosing your subclass until level 3 makes perfect sense to me. For every single class. You start out in basic then you have to earn your major. Yes even for clerics.
@danrimo826 except in a world without multiple divine domains you don't join to be "a cleric", you join a specific sect devoted to a specific god of a specific domain. It makes no sense for even a level 1 cleric to be generic. Some classes should start with their subclasses. Idk why they changed it.
@@jellewijckmans4836 The 2014 book was sensible about the Monk one at least: "All three traditions rely on the same basic techniques, diverging as the student grows more adept. Thus, a monk need choose a tradition only upon reachng 3rd level." Now if they just added similar lines to all the subclass entries in 2024... it might sit better with people
Warlocks begin at 1st level with a pact made for a specific grant of power (invocation, pact boon, etc) rather than the flavour of patron. Typically they seek out knowledge, whether from great old ones or fey, or they seek out the power to summon, whether from the fathomless or a fiend. It makes sense to me to start with invocations and spellcasting.
Or simple solution: New house rule. You choose your subclass at lv 1 but it doesn't provide any unique benefits until level 3. The last portion of that is what they (Hasbro) are trying to go for, they just went about it in a bad way because from a mechanical standpoint subclasses are meaningless until they provide unique benefits. They're just thinking mechanics before roleplay.
One way to have that perfect balance between players being in the dark and GMs being able to envision the patron - LEVEL ONE - GM: Okay, so you’re playing a warlock! What does your character know so far about their patron? Player: Alright! My character’s patron is known as Mistress Lhuubhaanyaa, a being who manifests as a golden light that smells like cinnamon. She comes across as a sweet and bubbly wine auntie, but she also seems to have a bit of disdain for mortals simmering just beneath the surface. GM: Okay, I can work with that for now! - LEVEL THREE - Player: Alright, I think I’m going with the Archfey subclass! GM: Awesome! So, Lhuubhaanyaa is probably some kind of Archfey of the Summer Court who reveals to you that she believes mortals incapable of true artistic refinement without Fey guidance. She longs to be your muse, and she’s going to make you the most famed artist of the generation, whether you like it or not. Does that work for you? OR Player: Alright, I think I’m going with the Fiend subclass! GM: Awesome! In that case, Lhuubhaanyaa is an ancient Lilitu who remembers the time when her kind were powerful demons, then fled to the devils, then finally had their forces scattered when Queen Malcanthet was assassinated. Lhuubhaanyaa longs to reunite the succubi forces once again under a single banner, returning them to greatness, and she has chosen you to become her first cult leader. Does that work for you? OR Player: Alright, I think I’m going with the Celestial subclass! GM: Awesome! In that case, Lhuubhaanyaa is essentially an angelic nepotism baby who sees herself as your guardian angel. She doesn’t have much experience with mortals, and sees you more as a pet than an equal, but she genuinely cares about you and wants to help you do the right thing…as long as it impresses her superiors and gets her a better rank in Mount Celestia. Does that work for you? And so on. Definitely a lot more work, and requires a lot of adaptability on everyone’s parts, but this is at least better than starting from nothing.
I've always thought subclasses should be a level 1 feature. It's never made sense to me since I've always thought of subclasses as just being flavors of the same class, akin to Pathfinder archetypes, but built into the class rather than separate.
I can see why you might think this but no. That would be a terrible design decision. Aside from throwing too much at players, it also dilutes the class identity. In fact I think you could make an argument that subclasses should maybe start at level 5. To give players more time to really grow in to their class and just when they get to the point where they think they have it more or less figured out, then you throw this new wrinkle or evolution at them.
@@darkguardian50 Agree wholeheartedly. If you're going to muddle a class archetype with subclasses/domains/prestige levels/whatever you want to call them, they should at least be something that's actually gained through developing the basic archetype.
Whether it's a known or unknown Warlock patron, just roleplay that the patron doesn't grant them (willingly or unwillingly) the patron-specific powers until the character hits level 3. Same goes for Clerics and Sorcerors. Small manifestations of power at the start before they grow with the character. It's the same idea with species spellcasting that upgrades at level 3 and 5.
Wow what an odd design decision. Good thing they covered this sweeping change in the two year long playtest that definitely mattered. Glad they didn't just pay lip service about listening to players while designing a system that didn't engage at all with any of the many surveys that were sent in.
If you wanna play a warlock as someone who is just reaching out to whoever will listen for help and accepting that pact… then this is perfect for you. If you have something in mind though it can be a bit weird. Like.. maybe make selecting a patron a level 1 thing and the subclass is just what powers they give. But then that ruins the flavor of your gifts being themed around your patron.
The change overall feels very Mechanics Focused instead of Narrative Focused. On the positive, I like that new players can get a sense for what Classes are like before specializing, so maybe they can learn who their character is before they explore Mechanically who their character is.
I think it works better if you just think of the "mystery patron" as one of many options to handle it. You could just have a "starter" patron, a weak demon or spirit of some kind, who gets replaced when your experiences and power lead you to seek a proper patron (or for them to seek you) by level 3. A players who know what they want can just pick what they want from the beginning. A player thought they knew what they wanted but changed their mind can shift allegiances, and now the DM now has a vengeful ex-patron in their pocket. Until they get the abilities, it's just flavor, so it can be whatever you want.
Easy answer: you made your pact at Level 1, but since your power grows as you level up, at Levels 1-2 you just don't have anything unique to that Patron yet. You're like a kid on the first day of Baseball Camp, you're learning the game overall and haven't specialized into a specific role yet. So you've got a specific Patron, it just doesn't matter mechanically who it is, because their individualized influence won't be felt until Level 3.
There are a lot of “simple fixes” that ignore something written into the handbook! Which is fine, obviously we can all house rule stuff - but I also think it’s reasonable to want the stuff in the book to work as-written!
@@GinnyDiperhaps it’s not a bargain until level 3. Level 1 and 2 it’s more of a favor. You pray to Cthulhu, or sacrifice gold to a Devil of avarice, and you get some powers from the rituals. At level 3 the patron contacts their loyal follower and offers them a more concrete deal. Or it could be a Devil “offering a taste”, once you taste the power of eldritch blast you’ll come begging to sign your soul away. This actually helps RP multiclassing! You can dip into warlock without selling your soul for basic abilities
I like to use the process of selecting a college major analogy. Whether you're in your desired major/department or still in the deciding phase, your first year will consist of completing general education courses (in high school these are your AP or equivalent classes). If you're undecided you can take a prerequisite that still falls under the desired major. This is the time where changing majors has little to no impact in the long run. Sure, at level 1 the Patron is a mysteries and unknown and the in game PC doesn't know who it is. But as a player, you're not just your character, you're also one of the story tellers, the POV is just different compared to DM. So as a story teller I see no conflict in deciding the Patron at level 1 (but PC doesn't know) or deciding at level 3 (when PC would know too). If the player doesn't want to be involved in the story telling aspect, that's fine. It still works under the framework described by the PH24. The overarching narrative "knows" the mystery Patron but the PC doesn't until level 3 (when player decides the Patron).
Also, I'm not sure how much new players will care about it. There are a lot of rules to keep in mind. A lot of things will be accepted as is and not get questioned b/c they won't know what to ask. By the time they understand enough to ask a question, they should understand they can just make stuff up... which is the point of the game. It seems like only people who've played PH14 version will think about it to this extent. How often do new players role play deeply? First time DnD and first time role players won't care (again too many rules as is). Veteran role players and/or veteran DnD players should be flexible enough to make stuff up...
A few options I think I'd offer a player to choose between, if I ever run 5e and a player makes a level 1 warlock: - Your patron is undefined until you pick a subclass at level 3: No knives to twist (yet), but also no mess. You explicitly know you're accepting power from somebody but you don't know the trading partner or exactly what you owe - You get your subclass features at level 3, but you still know something of your patron at level 1: We can work together with give and take as normal on the nature of your patron and pact. - Dealer's choice, straight up: I make the entity, I choose the subclass. It's a mystery to you until the level 3 reveal. - Sort of a mix of the first and third: I can come up with the entity, but it might not fit neatly into a subclass category. You're free to pick your subclass mechanically at level 3, and I'll twist the flavor a bit to make your abilities make sense. The reveal might not even come at level 3, you might be scratching your head a decent chunk of the campaign until you either do the research to find out or it becomes a problem. - choose the subclass now, solve the mystery later (requires some buildcrafting experience): You declare your intended subclass, but I decide the patron's nature in secret. You might start out knowing as much as in character as out, or not even that.
I like the idea of the CHARACTER being sure of one thing, while the PLAYER either knows something else, knows that they're correct, or hasn't really decided yet. What if a tiefling were drawing power from an ancient tome believed to be from their infernal ancestor... And then they find out that they actually have angelic heritage and all sorts of questions about their lifestyle choices - edgies trying to be 'nice' or just endlessly pouting about the lack of edginess to your destiny are great stories.
Twists like this can be great fun, but they generally work best when player AND character knowledge is as close as possible. A tiefling learning about their hidden angelic heritage, to follow your example, is a fun twist, but in practice this loses a lot of its impact when the player knows about it all along (rather than having it genuinely surprise them when sprung upon them by their DM). Furthermore, not all players are good at maintaining the distinction between player and character knowledge. It's an important skill to develop, but not everyone starts there-and the core rules of the game should be welcoming to newcomers who might lack these skills. Accordingly, twists like this should be something experienced groups can add to their game, but the core rules shouldn't require this level of separating player from character knowledge.
There's also something to be said that it establishes what type of person each and every warlock is: someone who stumbled into power. The 2024 book seems to leave no room for a level 1 warlock who made a pact with purpose; either someone who specifically sought out a fiend to gain that power, or perhaps someone who was taken under the wing of an archfey. It's forcing every patron into the shadows at the beginning, when it can be just as fun to have a patron who is involved from the outset. And it kinda feels like every patron, even the celestial, has some kind of ulterior motive that's not benevolent.
Yeah. I have several Warlocks more or less meet their patrons by happenstance. My current warlock accidentally freed a Khayal (shadow genie - mostly a reflavoring of Efreeti due to his power coming from his flaming lantern, but my DM suggested trading out some of the expanded spells for more shadow themed ones) who got trapped in a lantern by an evil wizard, while he looking for his sister. His patron offered him the lantern that still contained some of their power and imbued him with the ability to begin channeling it but then was like “I’m rooting for you, but I’ve been trapped in here for a few decades, and I’ve got other shit to deal with. So good luck.” We haven’t really seen them in the campaign due to being in different planes (well technically the same plane but different demiplanes) with limited ability to communicate. So most of the interaction is from his backstory where the two more or less lived together for a couple of weeks (along with my warlock’s new pet shadow elemental) while his patron regained their strength. I like having a very hands off patron like that, just as much as having an extremely involved patron, but it feels like the current rules don’t really lend themselves to variety.
Yes, this! My warlock character (created based on 2014 rules, who I haven't even had a chance to play yet) has a backstory predicated on her knowing exactly who her patron is and approaching them with a bargain, offering herself in place of a loved one. The 'mysterious voice in the shadows' is a fun trope that can bring about some great storytelling, but it's not the story I want to tell with this character.
Hot take: If they were going to move Warlock subclasses to level 3, they should have switched them back to being Intelligence casters as was originally planned for 5e. Okay, it's way more nuanced than that, but here's why I think that history is relevant to the conversation, and why WotC is failing to fully realise a definitive conception for what Warlock now is. For those unaware, despite being Charisma based in previous editions, it's been said that the 5e Warlock was envisioned as Intelligence based until very late in the process - it was only switched last minute due to playtest feedback. The classes would have origianlly been far more balanced with 2 full casters for every stat and 1 half caster for every stat. Once you know this, all the flavourtext of Warlocks as 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 and 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦'𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 - and 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 - take on a different context. It's clear the original idea for the 5e Warlock was far more Lovecraftian - people who find a glimpse of eldritch magic and go down a rabbithole chasing answers, the mysterious figures behind them, and the power it can bring them. Even most of the Warlock proficiences are Intelligence based! And this has *barely* changed for the 2024 version - if anything they emphasise the knowlege seeking aspect more! I love Charmisa based Warlocks! I love how the popular conception of the class has develped! But the thing is that Charisma being the casting stat spotlights the notion of *directly barganing with your patron for your pact magic* as something core to the class. Your magic being Charisma based feels right if your power is tied to how well you can negotiate for it! (Or charm/decieve/aggranzise yourself/prove your worth through deeds etc.) Yet instead of finally completely committing to this idea of the Warlock in the 2024 book, they went the other way. They had 10 years to consolidate the class' identity in the books after their hasty swerve. They did not. Putting the Subclass at Level 3 instead of Level 1 dosn't make sense for a Charisma Warlock whose most important first step in their journey to power is making direct contact with an Eldritch being and forging a pact. It does however, make sense for an Intelligence Warlock whose journey begins with persuing a certain kind of forbidden magic that you come to understand is associated with a mysterious powerful figure - who you eventually knowingly persue for even greater power. Your *relationship* with your patron isn't so inherently central. The secrets related to their mysterious power, what you seek to do with them, and what extents you will go to discover them are. Understanding more about what exactly you've gotten yourself into as the campaign progresses fits! Too bad WotC haven't committed either way and have left Warlock still stuck between these ideas. TLDR: Despite the 2014 Warlock being a bit confused in its identity due to a last minute swap from Intelligence to Charisma, WotC hasn't taken the chance to fix that. They have instead made the dissonance worse by moving all subclasses to Level 3 - failing to meaningfully implement either the Charisma Warlock that is presented or the Intelligence Warlock that residually lingers.
They should have done what Paizo did with the Psychic in PF2e and made it so you can choose either Int or Cha as your core stat rather than lock you into Cha.
I think you're spot on here. Perhaps they thought changing it to intelligence would be too big of a change while keeping it "5e, just revised" I'm sure there's ways you can still make Charisma based Warlocks make sense with the new approach though, perhaps the first two levels are the negotiating phase, and while your knowledge seeking got the initial attention, it was your Charisma that made you stand out from the others before you and have the patron stick around long enough to form a real pact.
The *Pact* you choose should be what defines your subclass and not the patron. The *Pact* is the contract you write/negotiate/bargain over for the specific power from the Patron. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Yes, sure, give the player a different class feature based on the Patron you choose, but that's it. Maybe a list of spells always known (like a cleric domain).
@@jodinsan Take it further like PF2e and just make it so you have a different list depending on the patron. Would be cool to see. Could even then have it so it modifies Eldritch Blast too based on your patron.
As a house rule at my table all classes get their subclasses at level 1. If I change it now, I might just end up with an angry mob at my table. In any case in regards to warlocks, Clerics and the likes I tend to need to know what the player intends ASAP. This is mainly due to how I create side missions based on the god worshiped and the Patron served. So as a DM being kept in the dark it would give me a lot less time to get things worked out for the game table, which kinda hurts.
The fact they specifically call out the patron as being "mysterious" is a strange restriction on RP. Like, what if I want to have had my character making a knowing decision when they signed the pact? What if their patron is their Archfey Grandma whose main stipulation is that the player calls them every weekend. What if they had to sign a deal with their patron to escape A Situation alive? Stipulating that its mysterious is a real story-killer
THIS EXACTLY! an unclear patron is a cool alternative choice for a standard option of "you knowingly made a pact with [choose entity]". It would even be fine if you still only got specific benefits at level 3, and tbf you could certainly play it that way. It's just weird that they changed this nieche way of playing a warlock to be the default...
10:54, oh ginny, ginny, ginny if you think paladain is not edgy enough then you haven't tried to play one with an oath of conquest or oath of inquistion like the one from Grim hollow setting.
I'm not switching to 5.5 so it doesn't really matter, but enforcing the mystery patron irks me. It is a dynamic that can work; I've pulled it off as a DM. It shouldn't be the default though, let alone what the rules tell you you have to do. I'm going to talk about one of my favorite warlocks I've written to demonstrate how silly this is. He was raised in a cult to asmodeous. Starting from their 13th birthday a line of his holy symbol was carved into the children's palms. They add the last line themselves and disappear in a flash of brimstone only to return moments later with their soul sold to the lord of all hells. This warlock was rescued from his fate when the order of the gauntlet descended on his village wiping out the cutl and rescuing the children. After years living in normal society and becoming a successful merchant his pregnant wife was murdered by bandits. In a fit of rage he completed the unholy ritual summoning a devil and bargaining his soul for the magical ability to take his revenge. But hur dur di dur, I don't know who that voice is for all I know it might be Ki-Rin. That's dumb. Maybe it's asmodeous but he's just as likely as all the other 1000s of entities that could be capable of being patrons.
Insisting on locking these choices to the same level for every class boggles my mind. Too each their own, but I agree with everything you say here and much of it applies to the cleric, too.
House Rule: You only get to talk to a Servant of the Patron till you have fullfilled some requirement (that get's fullfiled right before you level up to level 3) A bit like with the Butler in the Dark Urge Origin from BG3
Being a warlock should be like joining an MLM, for levels 1 and 2 you are only interacting with the next person up from you on the pyramid. Once there is good buy in then you learn whose the boss!
I remember a similar situation in the 5e PHB with Barbarians. Under that class there was a blurb that outright stated you had come from a nomadic tribe or something like that. But then they also had Backgrounds, and you were free to choose whichever one you wanted. You could even be a Noble! I concluded that the part saying you were a nomad or a tribesman was just flavor text, a suggestion. Your Background is what actually determines where you come from. I made a Barbarian who was actually just a particularly fierce warrior from a noble house, because that seemed cool to me. And that was a fun character! If the 2024 blurb implying your Warlock doesn't actually know her patron is in a similar spot, then I'd make the same presumption. It's flavor text, a mere suggestion, and you're free to ignore it and have the pact formalized in your backstory if you'd prefer that. If you choose to follow that flavor text, that could be an interesting concept, too. Maybe your character was in some real trouble, and felt something reaching out to her and offering her the power to get out of it... for an unspecified price. She accepted, and now she's bound by a pact to do who-knows-what for some mysterious, shadowy figure. Lots of potential for fun, angsty, melodramatic intrigue, there.
Seeing as most of my campaigns start at level 3, this shouldn't be an issue at my table. Still, I agree with these changes being a big issue for the class' identity
Another way of putting it: A warlock is studying "occult" magic but only the most basic of basic like a wizard in a sense. But until they perform a "specific ritual" for more power they have not yet signed the dotted line.
Yeah, like the flavor of the Eldritch Adept feat. You're flipping through creepier and creepier books until you find something with actual power. The plot twist if it's a unicorn tho
Maybe they wanted to become a wizard until they realised how much work it is to actually study Magic so at level 3 they get fed up with learning and cheat by making some dodgy contract...
I feel like they should have changed the flavor of the warlock subclasses if they were starting at level 3. For example if the class had a paragraph or 2 about creating a patron and your subclass was a specialization that your patron bestows to you rather than the subclass for the patron itself i think this would work much better. It would also allow for more implicit flexibility in the class. Some of my favorite warlocks have patrons that are dead family members or were given power by the leaders of an organization they served. If they went with this flavor it could encourage these unique patron ideas even more.
Also second note I just came up with, this still allows the idea that you don't know you patron. In fact it might work even better for that cause you still get your subclass choice and control of your character and the dm can create the patron in narrative without ruining it
Not sure this is the best way to introduce a warlock to a new player but as an enjoyer of unusual warlock relationships I do think there’s something neat about a character having reached out in a time of need and *something* taking up that ill defined offer. You’ve bonded with something that grants you power but the connection is staticky and you spend your first few levels tuning into their frequency and discovering the vibe together with your gm If I were to run this for a player who wanted to both keep the mystery and contribute to the patron I’d propose a series of visions/questions in the early game where they get to provide some aspect of the tone and flavor of the scene thereby informing the sort of vibes their patron brings in game without necessarily needing to decide who they are beforehand -when you cast your spell your senses register the power of your patron like synesthesia what do you smell? What’s the texture? -your vision loses focus and suddenly your environment has shifted dramatically what do you see?
There's a different (and in my eyes bigger) problem connected to this. Their fix to not knowing from the beginning "forces" patron to be a mysterious entity... this means that you roleplay wise could not make a Warlock who has made a calculated decision about pledging their loyalty to a patron... A deal with the devil, to save your loved one... sure you can argue that you could do that with a mystery patron, but you have to be a certain kind of person to accept this from an entity that you haven't seen or know what is... Making them mysterious is a very cool story option, but it should be an option. And yes, as you say, you could just decide from level 1, but that is bad game design that makes it feel clunky and might scare people away. This change concerned me the moment the test material came out with this change, and it concerned me even more when they stuck with it. There's a reason that the classes who are basically defined by their subclass, gets it at level 1 in the 2014 version... Your Paladin example is a lot better, but still an issue... many (especially new) players aren't gonna read all the text. They wanna get their character ready, so skim through and find everything that seems like "mechanics"... not the "you finish your Paladin oath at level 3, but start considering incorporation of oathy things for your character from the start". BAD WIZARDS
The problem I see with the "unkown Patron" story is, it is probably cool once The patron is an essential part of the warlocks story and players like to think of creative ways on how theyve met their patron or why they made the pact Maybe the archfey warlock sought out a hag to cure his daughter of a mysterious disease. Maybe the hexblade warlock was a thief that unkowingly stole a cursed sword Now it sounds like the warlock foolishly sold his soul without even knowing the first thing about their patron You go to different patrons for different reasons and this way it all melds down to: "You are in a cult for funsies, worshipping something of which you are not quite sure what it is tho"
I believe official voices at WotC have (finally) said not too long ago that, in their design, the first two levels are meant to be the tutorial for people who don't even know how to throw dice and need to take it slow with the very basics, while it is actually intended for people who have the slightest amount of experience to start at level 3. Which, in the case we're dealing with here, would mean that anyone who's able to consider there might be a problem is expected to start at the level where the problem would not exist. But that leaves the question: why is none of this written in the PHB then? When they talk at length about how it was so important that we get a brand new introduction about what the game being played at a table is supposed to look like, or how much effort has been put into making information easier to digest, from the glossary to the very choice of fonts and so on, how comes they left out - no, removed - indications so pivotal to how the experience will play out and how to not have it go wrong? Are people expected to go fishing for design commentary on UA-cam? Isn't this new PHB, benefitting from ten more years of experience, supposed to be better at presenting all the information actually needed to play the game? (I know the unironic answer has a good chance of simply being set deadlines and having fired most of the team before the book was finished... But the simple fact that such questions can be raised is telling something.)
I think... I think WotC doesn't know what it's doing. I love D&D. But so much of this is baffling, and it feels like these decisions were made by people who maybe don't play the game
My beef, 5:25 is that this is a problem for all classes, not just Warlock. The vast majority of players read ahead in the handbook, that is how we get familiar with a class and what it will become, subclasses included. 90% of players metagame this way. I think by changing Warlock they are given the same flexibility. Like, who hasn't gone into a game thinking they would roll a sub class and then change gears randomly? That is the magic of the Patron's voice being mysterious.
As someone who started playing D&D on 5th edition with a warlock, it does feels that this rule is meant for beginner. Choosing my patreon was the hardest choice when I got to create my first character ever. I didn't know clearly the lore of the game and I felt that the book should be clearer with examples of patreons to choose for newcomers. In a way, I'd say that the level 3 patreon is a good option for newcomers, but I do agree on the mentionned issue.
They are explicitly telling experienced players to start at level 3 now too, which further makes it clear to me, that level 1 and 2 are there to present less up front decision making for players new to D&D and roleplaying.
My biggest issue is that a Warlock doesn't have powers without a Patron. Not involving them Storywise for the first Two levels is one thing but without their patron, Warlocks have no magic, no abilities, nothing. If there is no Patron, there is no warlock.
I feel like if they were to switch all subclasses to being accessible at the same level across classes, it should have been level 1. Clerics, Sorcerers, and Warlocks all get it there already, but I think it would work for other classes too. Paladins I've always thought should get their oath at first level simply for thematic reasons, but I think mechanically I think it would also be a huge upgrade across all classes. It would make multiclassing feel like less of a slog, so you're not waiting for certain abilities to come online before you can actually do the things you're excited about. The same thing goes for single class characters. It would make each character feel very unique right off the bat, so multiple people could play the same class at the start of a campaign without feeling redundant. Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters I feel would especially benefit from this.
It's always been weird to me that Warlock's sub-classes explicitly bind their narrative choices. Every other class can play against type. You can have an assassin rogue who's a burly thug, or a war cleric from a healing temple, or a paladin of a peaceful order with an oath of vengeance. But a warlock can't. Your patron defines both your backstory and your mechanics. I think Patron choice and Pact of the Tome/Chain/etc should have been swapped; Patrons are the starting choice with narrative weight and ribbon abilities, and the Pacts should be your sub-class with detailed mechanical progression.
All the warlock subclasses can also be against type, what do you mean? Take celestial for example, just because your patron is a celestial doesn’t mean you have to have a celestial themed campaign, maybe your celestial had been in hiding in the nine hells, and had become twisted by her environment. Celestial powers in a dark campaign. Besides, paladins literally lose their powers when they play against type… so… how is it any different there?
@@Zhaaligkeer A Celestial patron is "good" by definition. You can't really play evil character if you have to do good acts for your patron. To do otherwise, the DM would have to reskin and homebrew for you (a small amount, but it's still the only class that has this problem). Instead, the Celestial subclass's mechanics could be Pact of Flame (or whatever). Then you could play a Fiend or Old One healer warlock. The narrative weight is separated from the mechanics, then they can intersect in interesting ways. Paladin only have to rationalize their behavior to their oaths, they haven't had to literally "be good or else" for several editions. You can have an evil or a good paladin rationalizing Oath of Vengeance or Oath of Ancients. Clerics have an abstract Life Domain, not Cleric of Good Deity.
@@RobertN734the 2014 rule book says the patron may not even know you have made a pact with them, allowing you to essentially tap into their power without making a Faustian deal, but maybe making some other kind of sacrifice. You could have a celestial warlock that stole the power of god rules as written. Or I’ve seen people roleplay celestial black ops. The celestial wants something “neutral” done but they don’t want to know how you did it they just want results without breaking their *own* alignment
@@RobertN734 Counterpoint; by that logic, since a Fiendish patron is "Evil" by definition, then you can't really play a good character if you have to do evil acts for your patron. Does that statement sound right to you? Surely you've seen your share of warlocks who were shanghaied into the deal with a fiend, or reached out in a moment of desperation, or performed the rites in a fit of madness, or where sworn in some other way against their will.
I'm not saying it's impossible to make an evil Celestial Warlock, but you need a lot more GM consent and participation than other classes need for similar ideas. Of course advanced groups are going to house rule and tweak to their heart's content. Really what I'm pointing out is that the game mechanics of being a Celestial Warlock (getting the heal feat, the spell list) are bound up in this narrative conundrum. By contrast, if your evil party needs a healer, an evil Life Domain Cleric barely warrants an explanation.
Reminder that D&D doubled down on backstories not really being a thing at level 1. Level 1 is the time to be the in-training version of your character concept. Which is to say, start all your games at level 3 or higher, because 5E2024 is going to feel extra bad otherwise.
Still think it's weird with sorcerers especially as someone that loves the wild magic sorcerer, like suddenly this sorcerer that presumably had done magic for years at this point has random events happening, it's not like they have gone half an adventure and then random things start happening when they cast spells idk just seems like a really weird choice to me
Agree that this is super dumb. Per Jeremy Crawford, the intent for Warlock Invocations are side bits of arcana they pick up beyond the scope of their patron. The problem is that this is not communicated effectively at all in the class design
But then you should know your subclass from the start. You should be aiming to impress a Fiend from level 1, and only succeed at level 3 when a specific Fiend contacts you, not "you're trying to impress something unknown, and you find out what took notice of you at level 3."
@@BobBobson You should know your patron from the start. They're the ones who taught you to be a Warlock. It makes no sense for patrons to be moved to level 3. They aren't an expansion on your talents. They taught you everything.
Adjective: brat (comparative more brat, superlative most brat) (neologism) Characteristic of a confident and assertive woman. From Wiktionary... I didn't know either! 😁For the record, I think it should be bratter and brattest.
The editing in this one fucking had me in a different way! not to mention Ginny's beautiful comedic timing, at this point I'm not even sure i'm here for DnD even though I do love it but rather I think i'm mostly here for Ginny just being a hilarious human being.
I can see the level 3 subclass working for certain characters and story arcs, but not for others. For example, multiclassing into Warlock. My first D&D character was a Druid that established a relationship with Baba Yaga, and as such multiclassed into Warlock with Archfey. It would have been odd to have to wait till level 3 multiclassed Warlock to see that patron influence when it was clear and had already been well established who would be her patron.
You forget the fundamental fact about D&D from decades back . . . if you don't like a rule or system then don't use it, play the way that makes you happiest.
My two ideas for DMs to use would be: 1. the patron is very low contact or does 3rd party messages until 3rd level (They're powerful and busy AF!) & B. Multiple voices ring out to the warlock, one of each patron but at level 3, one sounds louder than the rest and that patron's requests become clear.
I've never had a player play warlock from first lvl. But I've had patrons offer them a chance to malti class. Which seems like it'd be weird to malticlass in the one addition.
I want to see a reality dating show-style campaign where level 1 warlocks compete for the affection of several potential patrons leading up to the big reveal of the pairings when they reach level 3.
This is the only solution that makes any sense 🙏😂
So THAT'S why their spellcasting stat is Charisma...
The Eldritch-Blast-elorette
Lol totally, patrons are less gods and more desperate singles hoping to be picked
I had an idea for a campaign setting once that people who can channel divine magic were special, so clerics were like free agents that different gods competed for as their representatives on the mortal plane.
Sorcerer reaches level 3: *chugs gallons of dragon blood*
Hey, your parental DNA test results just came in! Turns out your Papi was a friking Dragon!
la cerveza mas fina
Yeah, I have more issues with the vibe of sorcerers not getting their subclass until 3.
Like you start as a normal sorcerer with magic from somewhere, then suddenly after using your powers for a while develop dragon scales, or your magic starts summoning unicorns and turning you into a potted plant? Why didn't it do that before? The magic is from your BLOOD.
Honestly sorcerers imo need to be totally different. Your magic should be explicitly tied to your "Source". 5e and 5.5 have successively taken sorcerers further away from being unique to just "jock wizards"
@@garion046 the way I see it, it’s like if my DNA there is a long line of balding men in the family does that mean I need to go bald at age 5, or 10, or 20? Or can it manifest at a later time, like my 30’s or 40’s? Same for those dragon scales etc. your power comes from whatever the “source”’is, but some things just don’t come online until later? If it’s in your blood why don’t you start off being able to cast 9th level spells?
House rule: You can pick your patron at level 1 and not get the abilities until you have proven your commitment at level 3. That way the backstory still works.
This. I was concerned too, and maybe it's because I'm stressed about everything else in the world and my personal life, but now I'm more indifferent to the whole thing. This looks like a good and reasonable solution.
Honestly, how I think it should've always been.
I do this with paladins already
I could see this for the sorcerer too. You have a bloodline but haven't learned to tap into it until level 3.
Im honestly just using 5e for warlocks. I see no changes that make me want to switch.
You can easily just run One for martials (excluding paladins) and run 5e for everyone else, maintaining the weapon proficiencies and such
I’m imagining a Warlock Hiring Agency, where you apply and get a little bit of power while the agency shops your contract around to interested patrons. You get your subclass at level 3 when they send you a letter saying that [Patron] picked up your contract and you get the powers then.
I might not agree with all the changes, but some really cool ideas have come out of it.
Now I want to play this game!
That just makes me think the whole game should be comprised of "New hires" of a company that needed an adventuring group and turned to a temp agency to create it xD
This reminds me of the Citadel of Rick's in Rick and Morty, shopping for replacement Morties.
POTENTIAL PATRON: "And what you drew you to The Golden Legion of the Damned?"
*Warlock begins sweating as he tries to BS an answer having done no research about this patron.*
I feel like a lot of this confusion could be solved by just giving some examples in the flavour text. Having a few lines about ‘Your Warlock may scrounge bits of power from stray texts before finding out the true source of this power, and pledging themselves fully to their patron, who has been leaving those pages behind to find one worthy of serving him. Another Warlock may seek out their patron and know their face from the start, but must earn the right to use the abilities uniquely given to those chosen by their patron.’ Giving a couple examples of how the story may work for the mechanics would help so much, instead of just a single kind of obtuse solution.
Yes! I think this is a brilliant point.
Honestly, I'd probably just have it kind of like the patron just giving them a sample of their power before they fully pledge themselves.
Kind of like the freebies in a mobile game.
If they don't like the patron they have, they can leave them for someone else who represents them better.
Yeah I like the idea of them trying to bake in some Spider Man style power awakening into your leveling but without guidelines it feels awkward and kind of like an MMO, where you just don't question stuff like that at all because usually game mechanics come first in systems like that.
I don't know how I feel about patron courtship or anything like that. I guess I've always felt like warlocks were created by extraordinary circumstance more often than studious attempts at patron contact.
I guess the real answer is "whatever you feel is best" of course, but yeah!
At level 1 the DM can ask a Warlock for a flavour vibe, which way they're likely to go so roleplay can kick in straight away.
Should the player change their mind by level 3, what's to say the Patron you sold your soul to didn't trade your contract for something else, shifting your owner and allowing more interesting opportunities.
You could double down on this if the player dislikes their choice later, offer a rotating character subclass later on as if they're a daytrade stock with rolling the trees each day, competing and conflicting requests between different sub-patrons. Recursive hosts bidding for you each day or an angry contract holder if you're not willing to enact the bidders requests.
For me, this just confirms my preference for starting campaigns at Level 3 anyway.
Man starting at one or two is painful and risky. LOL.
When we saw these changes comming in UA the response from everyone at my table was "well we'll be starting all our campaigns at lvl 3 from now on". Frankly for almost every class it's the sub class I want to play, I really don't give a damn about the so called "base class". Like if i want to play a Wizard it's because i want to be an illusionist and playing at lower levels I'm just sitting their waiting to get my subclass features so I can actually be the character i wanted to play in the first place. Now that all happens at lvl 3 I don't see the point in any lvl below that.
Yeah I've never ran a campaign starting below level 3
the first three levels are for playing the starter kit modules- stuff that's on rails to get new players up to speed. anyone who's done much TTRPG should start at 3 or 4 so they don't miss the dopamine rush of the level 5 upgrades being earned.
Came here to say this.
It just feels like there’ll be a very popular house rule of “warlocks know their patrons at character creation”, it is so random to me
It really is. Of course they should all get their subclasses at level one. Every single Class should.
@@fredslipknot9 No, classes really should not get subclasses at level 1, that would completely break multiclassing.
You dont need a houserule for this.Flavor and backstory (other than origin feats/backgrounds) are free.
You can *know* your patron, you just dont get *mechanical game effects* until later.
Clerics *know* who they worship and their domain, they just get *mechanics* later.
That's certainly one option, but I honestly love that there are other choices now. My next warlock will absolutely have no clue who her soul is sworn to.
@@fredslipknot9
Nah. Subclass should be based off when you can access spellcasting.
Casting at level 1 (Warlocks, Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics) = subclass at 1st level
Casting at level 2 (Rangers, Paladins) = subclass at 2nd level
Non-caster or option to pickup casting at 3rd level (Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians, Monks) = subclass at 3rd level
You know, "brat" like "bratwurst". They're a silly little sausage!
I get the pun but unfortunately it's got an umlaut and is pronounced braut.
And that's without the consideration that brat as a buzzword already peaked.
@@MorinehtarTheBlue Ehm... no ? Bratwurst has no Umlaute. Then it would be written, like 'Brätwürst' ?
But the 'a' is long, as oposed to the short 'a' in english brat.
Grüße aus Deutschland : D
Huh. I did always think warlocks were the worst brats of all classes. Or as least that's how I run mine. 😇
I thought it was the abbreviated version of big rat
@@murphieslaw6932 In German it's Brätwurst, because it's a Wurst (sausage) made from Brät (diced meat)
6:00
Yes, this is my biggest gripe whenever someone - often new DMs - has legit questions or criticisms about DnD and certain features or rules. The proposed solution often follow something like "It's the DMs responsibility to...", "Flavour is free", "Just homebrew x or y" - yes, this is true, as long as the DM and the table agree, we can basically reflavour and homebrew anything we want or make certain ruling if the rules are unclear or breaks due oversights from the design team. DnD can be played anyway the table likes, no one will care or notice if you're not playing exactly according to PHB. And it is great that so many creative and talented people are putting out homebrew classes and systems for you to incorporate into your game, if you want to expand on certain aspects or tweak the game in a certain way.
But that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't have to: it's sloppy design! If a boardgame requires you to look up ruling on forums, everyone would agree that the rulebook is poorly written. If a videogame requires mods from the get go to play properly, that's a legit thing to criticise. But for some reason DnD gets a freepass because "the DM can just change it, if they don't like it"? WoC has a professional design team working on an IP worth millions of dollars: the base product should be tight, properly play tested and not introduce these grey areas for DMs to fix.
Homebrew should adress preferences, different goals and players, not fix the base game. Some small details with special builds or rare rules is one thing, but the core rules should just work
From a pure mechanics standpoint, I always saw it like “you have your patron, cleric domain, sorcerous origin, etc. from the beginning. You just don’t get anything unique from that interaction until a higher level”. A sorcerer is still a sorcerer, even if their draconic bloodline looks just like wild magic until they use their breath weapon for the first time.
This. Mechanic vs Flavor. You could make the claim about almost every class, not just Warlock, Sorcerer, and Cleric.
Gloomstalker and Fey Wanderer would typically have very different backgrounds. Beastmasters I've played with have wanted their companion in their background.
Circle of the Sea Druid is probably going to work the ocean as a major entity their entire lives.
Nothing changed flavor wise, only mechanics.
@@padenal6069 That's why this whole argument is so ridiculous. I've played a few different characters and we've always started at level 1. I always build my character already knowing what subclass they're going to be, so that way I incorporate flavor into them ahead of time to match it. I'm going to be an arcane archer fighter? Then in the first two levels, my fighter is going to be an archer as I build towards it over those beginning levels. Most of the classes I've played all got their subclass at level 3, so people complaining about this just seem a bit lazy to me (or spoiled) lol This also curbs lazy multiclass dips a bit, so now people have to work towards their level 3 abilities.
@@mekrot1as a fellow enjoyer of looking into my character’s future, I do think the argument has some merit . Not every player creates characters the same way and there’s not one single correct way to do so.
Having introduced the game to a fair bit of newbies some people have a really strong idea of their character and others prefer to feel it out during creation/play and it’s fascinating seeing how different folks go about it.
I agree that if you pre plan your next few levels it bypasses the issue but I don’t think you should Need to make a level 3 character in order to play your level 1 character
@@joffrerey you’re right that not every player makes their character the same way, but I really do think that moving all of the subclasses to level 3 is a nothing burger. I’m not even a huge fan of the new DnD rules overall, but this change seemed so natural and it’s weird to me that it can easily be fixed by roleplaying and it’s the role players that don’t like the change. I’m a DM and I’ve ran games for plenty of new players and many of them are confused by the subclasses at level 1 or 2 and I’ve known more than a few that felt locked in too early in the game and wanted to change their subclass by level 3 once they knew how the game worked better.
IMO the simplest thing is to say the PC DOES know who their patron is at Level 1, they just didn't "deepen their connection" strongly enough to start unlocking specific subclass features until Level 3.
I think this way lets you play in various ways tbh, you can either know who they are from the start, not know and solve that mystery by level 3, have only the DM know the identity but you find out the type at level 3 etc. Surely this just leaves it open to RP however the player and DM want to.
@@Iam_Stu Agreed
This is the most obvious take yeah. I’m not sure what all the uproar is for. Paladins have been taking their oath at 1 and “cementing” it at 3 and I’ve never thought that was a problem.
Legitimately, unless someone is brand spanking new to the game and starts at level 1, I don't think anyone is going to play a warlock without knowing who their patron is beforehand unless they choose to do so on purpose
@@plannedtuna8293 I've always thought that was weird. I much prefer taking the Oath immediately or at least when you get the spellcasting/abilities that come from said Oath.
To be honest, I think WotC had the assumption that only new players are starting at level 1. I think they got a lot of data/feedback that many campaigns start at level 3. This makes the warlock change make sense.
If you're a veteran who is going to have a good idea of who their patron is, you're starting at level 3 with your subclass already picked.
If you're a new player, you don't have to answer these extra questions until you level up a couple times.
This is *mostly* speculation, but not entirely; in one of their videos, they talked about making changes based on "the way people *actually* play the game". They may have even mentioned starting at level 3, but I don't remember what video it was to go back and check.
I totally agree with you. And I know a lot of veterans don't like the idea that level 1 and 2 are seen as these tutorial levels for new players, but I think the game needs them to be. At least somewhat. Something in this game needs to be tailored to people who have no understanding of ttrpgs. I would love for levels 1 and 2 to be more interesting, but I'm also cool with knowing that not everything can be made to how I, one person who's experienced at the game, wants to play.
To be fair I think warlock is not for beginning players
Why even have a level 1. There is no reason to start there as the game itself is arbitrarily balanced against a bunch of math and nothing else.
As an old man, (I started with AD&D) I HATE the idea of starting any level other than 1. Unless it's 0 level, I've done that a few times and it's fun. It's like starting a computer game with part already complete. I've DONE it, joining a group at level 13 to replace a 'beloved' DM's PC. It feel inorganic to me.
Thematically, just discovering who you Patron is down the line feels like you signed a contract without looking at it. Skipping ahead also feels wrong. I'm going to stick with my 3.5 Ed homebrew Warlock class.
I have been running it as "you know what your subclass is going to be" for every class from day 1. It impacts almost nothing. The problem is the "mystery patron" idea, not the subclass at level 3.
The Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Ranger & Rogue know what they want to be when they grow up. The Paladin knows what he's swearing his life to. The Cleric knows who's answering his prayers, The Druid & the Wizard know what their mentor/master is training them to do, and the warlock has a pretty good idea who he just made a deal with. The sorcerer may or may not know who his daddy is but thats his problem
Perfect.
I think they tried to "solve" something that didn't need solving: they came up with the mistery patron idea because they knew people used to 5e would find it strange to start at lvl 3. But without this, wouldn't have been anything wrong with the level 3 thing.
I really think it just has to do with being used to it, more than being about the logic, or lore or anything else. People are used to it, find it strange that it changed.
I hardly doubt it that anyone without previous knowledge of 5e, starting with the 2024's book, will look at the classes that changed to lvl 3 and be all "wow, it kind doesn't make sense that this dude only get his specific powers on level 3 like the others, it should be on lvl 1 or 2". When i started D&D, coming from other games, it was on 5e. And it never made sense to me that the classes varied the starter level for their subclasses, and everytime someone tried to explain it to me that it was this was because it MADE SENSE i always thought or argued many ways that it makes just as much sense as it would on level 3 as the others.
The same way the game has "gamification" of the powers the patron gives you basing it on levels, like "ok, now on lvl X you proved to me that you are worth some more of my powers, take it", it can have it in the same way for "ok, we made a pact, prove it to me you are worth it and i'll give you powers on lvl 3". Makes really no difference in terms of history or lore or etc. It's just game mechanics in reality that is changing.
@BrunoFernandes-ty7mf the concept doesn't work thematically with how D&D is set up, but it's meant to be "when you're that low down, there isn't a noticeable difference between a warlock or a sorcerer of one patron/lineage or another. This would work better if D&D was more gritty fantasy than power fantasy.
@@alexandercross9081 i think it works pretty well, but may be because i'm not all that deep into what D&D intent is and always played/DM'ed with a very loosely concept of fantasy genre.
Maybe because started with 5e only a few years ago.
@BrunoFernandes-ty7mf it's not terrible. It's just an issue of ludo-mechanical dissonance.
3:12 Wow, Warlock was already the character class that said “I make questionable life choices”, but now they flat out have no idea who the 🤬 they’re selling their life to or what they’ll get in return. 😂
Sounds like the player not having the imagination to realize you can roleplay things before or even without a mechanical hook.
I mean, Strahd Von Zarovich made a deal with a formless being he believed was Death to murder his brother and drink his blood, in exchange for fairly nebulous rewards. So a fantasy being making a deal with an unknown power because they're promised power isn't that far fetched.
Experienced players and dungeon masters will simply ignore this nonsense, but it really does illustrate how little conscious thought is being exercised at Wizards these days. Truly unfortunate. And I do worry about the impact of instructions like this (because that is what they are, game instructions) on new players.
@@jzoshak9571 very true; a classic “they’re more like guidelines” situation
@@jzoshak9571 As someone who's a pretty new player - the impact to me feels like I'd be less put off trying out warlock if I didn't have to lock in my level 3 subclass via patron selection when I didn't even know how to manage the earlier levels yet. Plus not having to be too locked-in on all the surrounding lore of every patron type or exactly how I want to play a character. It feels pretty freeing to have a couple of levels of figuring stuff out before you lock into a subclass, especially without much experience with spellcasters or roleplaying.
I feel like "You don't know your patron" is kinda the antithesis of how the Warlock/Patron relationship is. Sure, I'm certain some characters are offered a "deal with the devil" from a shadowy figure, but this seems to be forcing a "I suddenly have magical powers after being contacted by SOMETHING or SOMEONE and I have no idea who they are, why they chose me, or if I agree with them morally" plot into every campaign, unless the DM/player just ignores it. Yes, if the player/DM agrees to that, it's a great storytelling and narrative world-building device.
But I agree with Ginny that it doesn't make sense most of the time and is a bad design decision. It reeks of "We tried to streamline character creation" which is fine, but they also seem to have gone a bit too-far in that direction and have stripped a lot of narrative reasoning as well.
To me, choosing a subclass at lv 3 doesn't mean they haven't chosen a patron yet. It means up to lv 3 ALL patrons have the same effect, so all warlocks are indistinguishable. They still derive their power from their particular patron, however.
From a gameplay perspective though, how is that any different from not having chosen a patron? If you don't have a patron until level 3 or all patrons play the same until level 3, they are all going to feel the same.
@@TypicalJoker94 oh, they certainly do. I meant more from the roleplaying perspective.
From the gameplay perspective, I've very rarely played in D&D games where players were lower than lvl 3. With this new book, I see even less of a reason to ever play below level 3.
Then again, say, an entry level kitchen mook at a local family Mexican restaurant vs. an entry level kitchen mook at a Michelin star Italian restaurant: do they really have that vast a difference in their job? They both clean dishes, fetch stuff for others, etc. Gameplay wise, it's like they didn't even choose a restaurant they're working at.
@@lemonZzzzsI believe the book even recommends experienced players start at level 3. Assuming no multi-classing, everyone would have their subclasses anyway. Game designers are saying that starting at level 1 is designed for beginners, therefore it makes sense to keep the classes simple and consistent between classes, as for new groups it could be confusing how some classes just get generic stuff and others got subclasses.
@@TypicalJoker94 You could consider it as strengthening the pact until it solidifies at level 3 enough to also grant patron boons, rather than just spells and invocations. I have no problem with that idea, but the idea that you *automatically* don't know who your patron is until level 3 throws a lot of possible backstories and characters out the window.
Standardizing all the subclasses to starting at level 3 significantly reduces the likelihood of single-level dips. Yes Hexblade, I'm looking at you.
Fighter is still a great single level dip though, but I'm OK with that.
Brat Warlock Summer!
A useful guide to other classes: a warlock with a non-demanding force of nature or genetic patron (Sorcerer), a warlock who begs (Cleric), a swordy warlock who really begs (Paladin), a warlock in collective partnership with their nature patron (Druid), the same warlock but with a worse deal to 'preserve their autonomy' (Ranger), a warlock whose patron is their own workaholic nature (Wizard), a warlock whose patron is Etsy (Artificer), a warlock whose patron is art (Bard), a warlock whose patron is ego (also Bard), a pact of the blade warlock who's out of spell slots (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian), & any other pact warlock who's out of spell slots (Monk).
As a perennial Warlock player, this is incredible and I love it
I think the mystery patron is a fun idea, but I don't like how the 2024 rules make it seem like the only idea. Like, I think making a deal directly with a demon or fey that your character meets is a far more prominent and easily understood story archetype, but the 2024 class writeup and subclass progression pushes you away from that.
I think the strangness that comes along with the lvl 3 Subclass for all, is that some Classes needed to have a Subclass to even be a Class. Giving the character agency (not the player) is awkward. Warlock and Sorcerer always felt like you were unlocking something beyond your control, but now it feels like you could sit in camp and contemplate a patron or bloodline.
My thought: If I remember correctly, 4e Warlocks were "students of forbidden lore" or some such. Moving that up to 5e2024, your first two levels are picking up magical secrets that involve tapping into otherwordly powers and learning how to make a pact with them for even greater power, maybe even learning about different options during play through dusty tomes and such. The powers of the first two levels still come from an eldritch source but not a specific one that can make demands of you. When you level up to 3rd, you have to either Do The Thing (ie pick a patron and roleplay the pact, whatever that looks like) or multiclass.
It would be nice if the book actually said something like that, though.
That's true in 5e as well. Idk about 5.5. I know a lot of people didn't do this, but loosing your pact doesn't cut you off from any of your powers in raw it just stops you from being able to keep leveling warlock and maybe breaks your pact boon. Maybe if your patron were powerful enough they could curse you as revenge, but like you are not a spooky cleric.
@@mycenaeangal9312, RAW, yeah. In practice (and in CR, the default example), I've mostly seen it played that the power and the connection use the same "wire". Cut the wire and you lose both.
My thought exactly
To me you should still know what you want to make a pact with. If you're a LG warlock hellbent on destroying undead you're not going to be interested in forming a pact with a fiend, meaning you're not going to read up on it. Maybe you give it a cursory glance in a "pacts for dummies" primer, but you're not going to do hardcore research into how exactly to contact and make a pact with a fiend. At first level you know the types of beings you can make pacts with, and you've looked up how to tap into the most basic of powers from the source you choose. Second level sees you progressing along this line, and third level is when you formally sign yourself over. You should still know the path you want to take at the start though. Not knowing feels like you used WIS as a dump stat for your character, and they're happy getting power from wherever, as long as they get power.
@@BobBobson What if your village is being overrun by undead and a fiend shows up and offers you the power to defend it? Do you say "no thanks, I'd rather have a Celestial patron" and wait for one to show up while your relatives get eaten? Not every Warlock follows the plan you laid out. Sometimes Patrons are the ones who choose. Sometimes Warlocks don't even fully realise they made a pact.
Its an interesting shift I'll give it that, receiving spells and invocation receiving the Patron is a little bit of putting the cart before the horse, but I can also see the narrative potential.
The initial spells and invocations are part of the deal making process, a free trial, a seduction, power given on credit, and then 3rd level hits and the patron meets the warlock properly to bind the deal. Something along those lines, it definitely requires talking to the GM but thats always been true for Warlocks
Exactly, I don't see how you have only two options as a DM due to this change. I think your angle is great, I can also see some kind of indirect communication for the first couple levels, maybe depending on the pact-boon invocation my player uses. A sword with a cryptic message, A strange creature that keeps talking about the will of their master, An ancient tome that misses pages and seems to "tug" the player to a specific location etc... And if my player already knows which patron they eventually want to choose than there isn't a problem at all. I also somebody suggest a sort of patron dating show concept, which depending on the tone of the campaign could be awesome!
I've already discussed this with my various d&d groups and we've decided to cut the Gordian knot and just start all new campaigns at level 3. The last new player who joined us wound up creating a level 8 multiclass bard/druid for her first character so if we can talk a newbie through that process and still create a character that doesn't feel underpowered we can talk any future new players through starting at level 3
I honestly think this will end up being what a lot of groups do too.
I really fundamentally dislike the idea of a game system just flat out saying that the first two levels of their game are by default not interesting enough to be considered worth playing. It feels like if that's the case, you should change those first two levels to be more satisfying.
@@velemamba260 Thank you! This is what I've been saying for YEARS!
@@velemamba260Not even interesting but also... Not balanced. The fact that level 1 and 2 have such ludicrously small health pools means they locked them into this area where they're useless because. It's so hard to balance something when you could theoretically have a player at 6 or below HP.
@@velemamba260 which is a fundamental problem with modern DnD.
Got me thinking about how it plays for multiclass warlocks.
Multiclassing into warlock gives a chance for the patron story to unfold better than in 2014 rules.
Multiclass warlocks that never reach W3 never know their patron (that's strange)?
As you said, getting DM and player on same page is crucial to telling the story they both want.
Editing/playtesting has NOT been a WotC strength in the last 2 years. I really think they are in the 'good enough to ship and fix it later' mindset.
except they also don't fix it later either
the thing i like the least about this is that i feel like i'm being shoehorned into one type of dynamic with this.. the ''mysterious patron'' deal is such a specific story vibe. I mean what if i did want to have a first meeting with my patron at a fully lit conference table, why not. The warlock should accomodate both scenarios and any number more
Maybe the mysterious thing should just be a subclass in itself. Lvl 1 you pick your ''Mysterious Patron subclass'', lvl 2 you get a vague sign or a riddle, and as a subclass feature, at lvl 3 you discover your patron and retroactively pick the subclass features of it
Yeah I agree, that's what doesn't sit well with me, I get we love mysteries but I feel like forcing the mystery approach really reduces the other options for a Warlock backstory/pact, like maybe I do want my character to know who they were making a pact with for a multitude of reasons! I hate the shoehorning happened in 2024 warlocks as well
I don’t know if you have to go with the mysterious patron vibe. You could very easily reflavor it to be that your character has known their patron for a long time and it’s only after they’ve sufficiently proven their worth that their patron grants them more specific abilities and stuff
Quite. I mean... The family from Encanto was a cluster of Warlocks, far as I'm concerned.
@@FoxerBoxerNaaniwa absolutely that's the beauty of dnd, its an open ended game at the end of the day that we can just customize and reflavor to our heart's content
i just wish we would move away from having to butt heads with the oficial text is all. If not for principle alone, then just for hanging less expectations on new players that might defer to the textbook for how to flavor their classes.
But you are super right, it's not hard to reflavor it
"Mysterious patron" was literally word-for-word in the 2014 version. So basically people have been complaining about a version of the 2014 warlock that didn't exist rules as written because almost everyone collectively homebrewed warlocks to have more involvement with their patron.
Let me get this straight: The whole "being in contact with your patron" didn't exist before. It exists now in the 2024 ruleset where you get a class feature similar to Divine Intervention where you can call your patron, but in 2014 ruleset there was no such thing.
Being able to talk to your patron was a thing that was popularised from things like Critical Roll and Dimension 20. There was NO obligation from the DM to even have your patron acknowledge you. Now the DM has to at least give you a bare minimum.
House rule that I might use: treat it like Final Fantasy, where you start with a basic class and then level up to an advanced class at level 3. So the Warlock is an Occultist at levels 1 and 2, dabbling with powers they barely understand, and then at level 3 they meet one of those powers and enter into a pact with it. A Paladin starts as a Squire; a Wizard starts as an Apprentice. Etc. 1st and 2nd level are already survival horror before you get to the heroic fantasy...
IMO, the source of your power, whether that's your sorcerer bloodline, your warlock patron, your deity, or your oath, or whatever else is could be, that should ABSOLUTELY be chosen at lvl . That does not mean subclasses shouldn't be chosen later, I also think that they should. I would argue that your source of power shouldn't be your sublass at all, your sublass should be your desired way to utilize that power. In the case of warlocks, I'd say they should have used the existing pact options as the subclasses, albeit versions that get further fleshed out.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you called this out as "sloppy design". And the "Why?" you ask later in the video has a sadly straightforward answer: This is what you get when you lay off big chunks of your writing staff to save costs and deliver short-term gains to your shareholders. Right, Hasbro? These issues could have been addressed with some editing oversight, and more contextual information to help players and DMs navigate these decisions, but the writers and editors of this edition didn't take any time for that.
Integrating gameplay mechanics with narrative elements is always a gamble: you build flavor and reinforce worldbuilding elements at the expense of player freedom to choose whatever mechanical elements they want regardless of roleplaying implications. As an example, a fiend-pact warlock ties mechanical elements (temporary hp when foes perish) with narrative elements (a connection to the lower planes), while choosing your weapon style as a fighter says virtually nothing about the narrative of your character. While I understand the value in this sort of baked-in narrative flavor, I generally prefer options that allow for mechanical and narrative flexibility for my players, and I think a similar approach SHOULD have been taken for any class option that you choose after level 1.
For warlocks, I would have re-named and re-flavored these abilities to make them pact-neutral, and probably called the ability something like "deepened pact." There's no necessary reason gaining temporary HP needs to be tied to the lower planes-couldn't a fey or otherworldly patron also reward their warlock for claiming souls? Couldn't a fiendish patron imbue their warlock with the ability to frighten or charm? etc. I know there's some flavor lost with this approach, but it would resolve the dissonance here between players' narrative expectations and how the mechanics reflect and restrict that narrative.
P.S.: Personal pet peeve, but "begging the question" is a logical fallacy involving circular reasoning. It's not the same as "raising" the question.
you have a patron at level one but quote "you do not who or what they are" this destroys the concept of making a pact with a supernatural entity for power... how are the pacts made if you are unaware of them? Glad one of my best house rules is all subclasses are chosen at level 1. I mean how many players play d&d without picking their subclass first to define their character concept.
"Triceratops & Bottoms" - omg, you crack me up, Ginny!
I had to look it up, and it's an actual book 😂
One thing I especially liked about the 2014 warlock was that a lot of wannabe-minmaxers would take just one or two levels of warlock to get eldritch blast and agonizing blast, but because the patron was chosen at level 1, I as the DM still got a whole new, extremely powerful NPC to play around with and interweave in the story. You get yourself a nice cantrip, I get a knife made of emotional trauma that will hang over your head for the rest of the campaign. In a sense, making a pact was tempting, just like a pact should be!
So yeah, I much prefer the idea of picking subclasses at level 1 for classes where it makes sense to. I feel like they made the change to avoid overwhelming new players with too many choices, but those are the kinds of choices a new player should absolutely be presented with imo. It's a choice about your character's identity and story, not some crunchy decision about what fighting style you want your fighter to have.
They didn't make the choice to keep from overwhelming new players. They made the choice to make things more uniform between all classes. But they did so with out thinking through the ramifications of this uniformity. It would have been better to make the subclass chosen at 1st level for all classes, rather than forcing nonsense onto classes that it doesn't make sense for just for the sake of uniformity.
@@spamfilter32 More reasons I feel P2E is just the way forward for anything that isnt just teaching coworkers what a dnd is
@@spamfilter32 eh I would've been fine with some classes getting subclasses at level 1 and others at level 2, level 3 was always a terrible level to tie to subclasses and should never have become the standard
@PhalisoBringerOfDoom my point wasn't thst 1st level had to be the way and the only way, only that if Hasbro insisted that all classes get subclasses at the same time, than 1st lvl is more sensicle than 3rd. But like you, I am fine with different classes getting subclasses at different levels as is current.
@seagullspit6048I feel like comments like this are what perpetuate misinformation about subclasses that aren’t nearly as powerful as people make them out to be. When I chose one, the DM planned for it and we talked about it openly. Had a good balance in combat. It’s really not that big of a deal.
I like the thought that the character chooses and know's who their Patron is at level 1, but the Patron doesn't give them the subclass until you've shown you've "earned" it. A.k.a. level 3 after they've been able to see what you've been able to do with a fraction of the power gained. Good narrative flavor!
Exactly. Same with Paladin oaths. You still have to earn it, easy in-world explanaition. Sorcerers need time to get their inherited powers kicking off, like the X-Men waiting for their mutant puberty. Martial classes still work on their form, etc.
I am fully in team 'choose your subclass at character creation', for gameplay- AND roleplay-reasons !
Or ever the more scary thing of they dont know who their patron is but they are getting power from it till it reveals themselves to the player. One of my players said to me "all I know as a character is that there is some fiendish creature that i've struck a bargain with and which devil made the bargain is up to you" and that honestly led to a crazy campaign hook and plot.
I think this was the reason they chose to bump up to 3 along with everyone else- people saying D&D isn't very story-friendly.
this sounds like a good idea!
You mean you don't like the idea of your character signing themselves away to something entirely unknown, then having that unknown being jump out of a cake at level 3?
Idea: DM brings in ALL patron types and rps them trying to seduce you into their employ. An archfey might offer powers of wonder and beauty while a fiend might offer you powers for revenge or to achieve a goal the player might have. This gives the player options upon reaching level 3 and explains why the warlock has very basic powers until then, getting their powers fueled by multiple beings trying to win them over.
8:13 Why does this make me think that the Warlock became the Gacha Caster?
I think the best approach is to let the player not know / let them take their time to decide who their patron is until level 3. A player who is new and genuinely wants to "feel out" their character probably isn't gonna feel like something is missing if the DM doesn't involve their patron during those first few sessions; and a player who actually wants their patron to be directly involved in the story probably knows who their patron is well in advance.
The best approach is to use the 2014 Warlock.
@@TrueRomancer04 honestly probably not
Yeah, but doesn't that mean you have to present them with options? That kind of takes over the plot for a while, all these otherworldly things sending unsolicited ads or some junk.
Better to figure out ahead of time what you want and then have the subplot of hearing that whisper or discovering something in a tome.
@@gbprime2353 Not necessarily- for the player who doesn't know what they want their patron to be, the DM can say they "stumbled upon a sketchy ritual in an old book" or something. No direct contact with a patron is necessary until the patron can actually be identified. The player doesn't have to decide beforehand.
@@ronnygeis895 That's certainly one way to do it, but that works best if the player has no preference between angelic, demonic, fey, or the other kinds of patrons out there. The FLAVOR of the PC becomes up to the DM to decide, and that's kind of the shortcoming that Our Lady of Too Many Dice is pointing out.
If a rule change results in basically every table simply houseruling back to the OLD rule, you've fucked up somewhere. Which is how I see this change.
Or I would just make the starting level be level 3
@@vukkulvar9769 which I normally already do, lol. But that doesn't solve any issues for newer groups starting at 1. Which is really what this whole thing is about. As an experienced DM I'll house rule it without issue
@@vukkulvar9769 I summarized this video to my partner, and that's literally what they said.
It's cyclical, 10 years from now I would be shocked if they didn't flip this change again.
I dont really see the issue, it's not like it's a random roll for what your patron is, you pick it. It's just that there isn't individuality in the class till lvl 3 which makes sense, cause a patron isn't going to give you their true power starting out. You get the general power package for interns, as you haven't really gotten their true attention yet. This change adds some new roleplay potential for hitting lvl 3 since that's when you finally get the patrons attention.
I think the ludonarrative dissonance is the worst for Sorcerers: their innate magic comes from a unique source, but somehow that doesn't manifest until they've become pretty good at casting spells, up to that point they cast them just like everyone else, somehow...
It isn't a problem for just warlocks, and was also a problem in 2014 for some classes (paladin): what should the expectations be for a character who only ever takes one or two levels of warlock? Their patron stays shadowy and undefined forever?
Haven’t finished the video but what I would do is,
Warlock: you get a small amount of power after making a deal with a patron but have to do a small task to prove yourself before they give you a true piece of their power.
Sorcerer: You always knew that you had a strange magic inside of you, but scared to harness it and discover what it is you held back from training it. Due to recent events, you have to strengthen that magic which means finding out what that magic actually is.
Cleric:
Before you have approval to gain the core benefits of the deity you follow, you have to learn the basics of being a cleric. When you hit a certain milestone you’ll be permitted to begin learning the abilities that come with worshipping your chosen deity.
But that's not waiting to choose the subclass, especially for the warlock. Is your character making a pact with some random something in the universe and hoping it turns out in their favor? It doesn't feel right. Sure, maybe you don't learn who your specific patron is until level 3, but you should know if they're a Fiend, Celestial, etc. right from the start, meaning you know the subclass, but not the patron.
The same goes for the cleric. You have to learn the basics of being a cleric for which domain? War is not going to be the same as Trickery. You have your subclass at level 1, then spend levels 1 and 2 learning the ropes, and at level 3 you devote yourself to a specific deity associated with that domain. You know your subclass from the start, not at level 3.
@@BobBobson There's never been any part of warlock that said the character knows the SPECIFIC patron, that was always a choice by players. It gives examples of who such patrons might be for each type but there's nothing that says you know their identity. A level 1 warlock could have heard that there was power to be attained by making a deal in an old temple and the being that responds doesn't reveal their identity, or conceals their fiendish form behind an illusion of an angel etc etc Not every warlock gets to sit down at a table and make introductions with an incredibly powerful patron to make their deal. Warlocks don't even need to align with their patron's goals and are sometimes sought out by those beings to make a deal rather than the other way around. The idea that "all warlocks should know their patron from level 1" is just as bad as "no warlocks should know their patron at level 1".
My thoughts regarding patrons is that you don't need to limit your choice based on an archetype. I had a player that wanted Cthulhu as a patron, but wasn't in love with Great Old One. With a bit of flavour, we modified the thematics of Undead to match their vision for Cthulhu. Not necessarily a one size fits all, but can open up options a bit. And gives them a bit of freedom when they eventually reach level three.
Regardless, I don't love the level three subclass choice across the board.
In an Eberron game, I played a Fathomless warlock and flavored most of his class abilities as just an unusually powerful Mark of Storm.
Yeah, it makes more sense for different classes to get them at different levels, and just ensuring every class has it /at or before/ level three.
I honestly would kind of prefer that your patron can be anyone you want, and your subclass and powers are just a specific set of boons that you get regardless of who gives them to you and are not tied to a specific type of patron. Sort of in the same vein that your pact boons are not patron-specific. So for example, rather than Hexblade being explicitly tied to sentient weapons from Shadowfell, it's just a set of powers that a martially-inclined warlock might request or receive from their patron.
@@jordanw2741 I'd agree with you, but there certainly should be some options available to only certain patron types. Like it would be weird for a fiend patron to grant you powerful light magic and healing powers. Abilities for Warlocks are really just a collection of mechanics anyways, and flavor is free, so unless something has to be completely twisted end over end until it doesn't make sense anymore, I also support making things fit toward a preferred patron, even if the subclass isnt the usual for that patron type.
Tbf Great Old One does kinda suck lol. Really needs a makeover, wonder how it looks in the new book and if they fixed it or not.
The only thing giving people their subclasses at lvl 3 accomplishes is declaring that level 3 is the new level 1, because I don’t know a single DM who is going to be like “Yeah a cleric/sorcerer/warlock who doesn’t have their subclass on the outsset totally makes sense." Which has the side effect that now there’s efectively only 17 levels in the game if you do that. I could see that “the patron is a mystery” thing working, but has the unintended consequence of forcing a story beat on a level 1 player that maybe they don’t want and if you’re playing a campaign where everyone is level 1 you are forced into that plot beat.
Additionally, with sorcerers, there is the added complication that your character doesn’t really decide their subclass, they’re born with it. I could see maybe a solution where you were an orphan and unsure what your lineage is, but again that forces you into a discovery plot beat that maybe you don’t want.
How does the monk not knowing their tradition until level 3 make any more sense then cleric? The barbarian suddenly remembering that their rage is about a deep connection with a god? Entirely reasonable. Sorc not knowing which outer planes being their great great grandpapa had a wild night with? inconceivable. Any of the martial classes that get a new stat requirement when they get a subclass have always needed you to pick their subclass effectively at level 1.
If you have some experience you should start at level 3 but it "not making sense" mostly has to do with what you got used to with 2014 and not actual logic.
@@jellewijckmans4836 I just gave examples that came to me at the moment. You’re right, monk not knowing their tradition until lvl 3 doesn’t make sense either. I’m not saying those are the only examples this doesn’t work narratively. I don’t really know what your issue is with what I said though you seem to be really indignant about it because it sounds like you agree. Regarding sorcerers, you don’t necessarily need to know the details of where you got your magic from, but you’d think growing up you’d at least have a good idea of the general direction your powers come from, right? Like you’d probably be able to figure out if you were an Abarrant Mind versus wild magic sorcerer pretty early on right?
I'm a DM and not choosing your subclass until level 3 makes perfect sense to me. For every single class. You start out in basic then you have to earn your major. Yes even for clerics.
@danrimo826 except in a world without multiple divine domains you don't join to be "a cleric", you join a specific sect devoted to a specific god of a specific domain. It makes no sense for even a level 1 cleric to be generic. Some classes should start with their subclasses. Idk why they changed it.
@@jellewijckmans4836 The 2014 book was sensible about the Monk one at least: "All three traditions rely on the same basic techniques, diverging as the student grows more adept. Thus, a monk need choose a tradition only upon reachng 3rd level."
Now if they just added similar lines to all the subclass entries in 2024... it might sit better with people
1:39 Ginny is simultaneously both sisters in that infamous meme
Warlocks begin at 1st level with a pact made for a specific grant of power (invocation, pact boon, etc) rather than the flavour of patron. Typically they seek out knowledge, whether from great old ones or fey, or they seek out the power to summon, whether from the fathomless or a fiend. It makes sense to me to start with invocations and spellcasting.
Or simple solution: New house rule. You choose your subclass at lv 1 but it doesn't provide any unique benefits until level 3.
The last portion of that is what they (Hasbro) are trying to go for, they just went about it in a bad way because from a mechanical standpoint subclasses are meaningless until they provide unique benefits. They're just thinking mechanics before roleplay.
One way to have that perfect balance between players being in the dark and GMs being able to envision the patron
-
LEVEL ONE
-
GM: Okay, so you’re playing a warlock! What does your character know so far about their patron?
Player: Alright! My character’s patron is known as Mistress Lhuubhaanyaa, a being who manifests as a golden light that smells like cinnamon. She comes across as a sweet and bubbly wine auntie, but she also seems to have a bit of disdain for mortals simmering just beneath the surface.
GM: Okay, I can work with that for now!
-
LEVEL THREE
-
Player: Alright, I think I’m going with the Archfey subclass!
GM: Awesome! So, Lhuubhaanyaa is probably some kind of Archfey of the Summer Court who reveals to you that she believes mortals incapable of true artistic refinement without Fey guidance. She longs to be your muse, and she’s going to make you the most famed artist of the generation, whether you like it or not. Does that work for you?
OR
Player: Alright, I think I’m going with the Fiend subclass!
GM: Awesome! In that case, Lhuubhaanyaa is an ancient Lilitu who remembers the time when her kind were powerful demons, then fled to the devils, then finally had their forces scattered when Queen Malcanthet was assassinated. Lhuubhaanyaa longs to reunite the succubi forces once again under a single banner, returning them to greatness, and she has chosen you to become her first cult leader. Does that work for you?
OR
Player: Alright, I think I’m going with the Celestial subclass!
GM: Awesome! In that case, Lhuubhaanyaa is essentially an angelic nepotism baby who sees herself as your guardian angel. She doesn’t have much experience with mortals, and sees you more as a pet than an equal, but she genuinely cares about you and wants to help you do the right thing…as long as it impresses her superiors and gets her a better rank in Mount Celestia. Does that work for you?
And so on. Definitely a lot more work, and requires a lot of adaptability on everyone’s parts, but this is at least better than starting from nothing.
I actually love this, great idea!
Character now, fluff later! Now you're thinking like a writer.
I've always thought subclasses should be a level 1 feature. It's never made sense to me since I've always thought of subclasses as just being flavors of the same class, akin to Pathfinder archetypes, but built into the class rather than separate.
I believe they do this is make character creation much easier for new players. They now explicity recommend experienced players start at level 3.
Especially when the subclasses radically change the play style. Like the Eldrich Knight, or anything the Artificer chooses...
I can see why you might think this but no. That would be a terrible design decision. Aside from throwing too much at players, it also dilutes the class identity. In fact I think you could make an argument that subclasses should maybe start at level 5. To give players more time to really grow in to their class and just when they get to the point where they think they have it more or less figured out, then you throw this new wrinkle or evolution at them.
@@darkguardian50 Agree wholeheartedly. If you're going to muddle a class archetype with subclasses/domains/prestige levels/whatever you want to call them, they should at least be something that's actually gained through developing the basic archetype.
@@TessHKM If that was the case, then they would need more base classes, which they have been trying to avoid doing after the last 2 editions.
Whether it's a known or unknown Warlock patron, just roleplay that the patron doesn't grant them (willingly or unwillingly) the patron-specific powers until the character hits level 3. Same goes for Clerics and Sorcerors. Small manifestations of power at the start before they grow with the character. It's the same idea with species spellcasting that upgrades at level 3 and 5.
Wow what an odd design decision. Good thing they covered this sweeping change in the two year long playtest that definitely mattered. Glad they didn't just pay lip service about listening to players while designing a system that didn't engage at all with any of the many surveys that were sent in.
If you wanna play a warlock as someone who is just reaching out to whoever will listen for help and accepting that pact… then this is perfect for you.
If you have something in mind though it can be a bit weird. Like.. maybe make selecting a patron a level 1 thing and the subclass is just what powers they give. But then that ruins the flavor of your gifts being themed around your patron.
The change overall feels very Mechanics Focused instead of Narrative Focused.
On the positive, I like that new players can get a sense for what Classes are like before specializing, so maybe they can learn who their character is before they explore Mechanically who their character is.
I think it works better if you just think of the "mystery patron" as one of many options to handle it. You could just have a "starter" patron, a weak demon or spirit of some kind, who gets replaced when your experiences and power lead you to seek a proper patron (or for them to seek you) by level 3. A players who know what they want can just pick what they want from the beginning. A player thought they knew what they wanted but changed their mind can shift allegiances, and now the DM now has a vengeful ex-patron in their pocket. Until they get the abilities, it's just flavor, so it can be whatever you want.
Easy answer: you made your pact at Level 1, but since your power grows as you level up, at Levels 1-2 you just don't have anything unique to that Patron yet. You're like a kid on the first day of Baseball Camp, you're learning the game overall and haven't specialized into a specific role yet. So you've got a specific Patron, it just doesn't matter mechanically who it is, because their individualized influence won't be felt until Level 3.
The way I see it, at level 1 and 2 you are proving yourself in one way or another and then you make the pact at 3.
There are a lot of “simple fixes” that ignore something written into the handbook! Which is fine, obviously we can all house rule stuff - but I also think it’s reasonable to want the stuff in the book to work as-written!
@@GinnyDiperhaps it’s not a bargain until level 3. Level 1 and 2 it’s more of a favor. You pray to Cthulhu, or sacrifice gold to a Devil of avarice, and you get some powers from the rituals. At level 3 the patron contacts their loyal follower and offers them a more concrete deal.
Or it could be a Devil “offering a taste”, once you taste the power of eldritch blast you’ll come begging to sign your soul away.
This actually helps RP multiclassing! You can dip into warlock without selling your soul for basic abilities
I like to use the process of selecting a college major analogy. Whether you're in your desired major/department or still in the deciding phase, your first year will consist of completing general education courses (in high school these are your AP or equivalent classes). If you're undecided you can take a prerequisite that still falls under the desired major. This is the time where changing majors has little to no impact in the long run.
Sure, at level 1 the Patron is a mysteries and unknown and the in game PC doesn't know who it is. But as a player, you're not just your character, you're also one of the story tellers, the POV is just different compared to DM. So as a story teller I see no conflict in deciding the Patron at level 1 (but PC doesn't know) or deciding at level 3 (when PC would know too).
If the player doesn't want to be involved in the story telling aspect, that's fine. It still works under the framework described by the PH24. The overarching narrative "knows" the mystery Patron but the PC doesn't until level 3 (when player decides the Patron).
Also, I'm not sure how much new players will care about it. There are a lot of rules to keep in mind. A lot of things will be accepted as is and not get questioned b/c they won't know what to ask. By the time they understand enough to ask a question, they should understand they can just make stuff up... which is the point of the game.
It seems like only people who've played PH14 version will think about it to this extent.
How often do new players role play deeply? First time DnD and first time role players won't care (again too many rules as is). Veteran role players and/or veteran DnD players should be flexible enough to make stuff up...
A few options I think I'd offer a player to choose between, if I ever run 5e and a player makes a level 1 warlock:
- Your patron is undefined until you pick a subclass at level 3: No knives to twist (yet), but also no mess. You explicitly know you're accepting power from somebody but you don't know the trading partner or exactly what you owe
- You get your subclass features at level 3, but you still know something of your patron at level 1: We can work together with give and take as normal on the nature of your patron and pact.
- Dealer's choice, straight up: I make the entity, I choose the subclass. It's a mystery to you until the level 3 reveal.
- Sort of a mix of the first and third: I can come up with the entity, but it might not fit neatly into a subclass category. You're free to pick your subclass mechanically at level 3, and I'll twist the flavor a bit to make your abilities make sense. The reveal might not even come at level 3, you might be scratching your head a decent chunk of the campaign until you either do the research to find out or it becomes a problem.
- choose the subclass now, solve the mystery later (requires some buildcrafting experience): You declare your intended subclass, but I decide the patron's nature in secret. You might start out knowing as much as in character as out, or not even that.
Honestly they should have had the subclasses just at level one. It makes the most sense for almost every single class.
I like the idea of the CHARACTER being sure of one thing, while the PLAYER either knows something else, knows that they're correct, or hasn't really decided yet. What if a tiefling were drawing power from an ancient tome believed to be from their infernal ancestor... And then they find out that they actually have angelic heritage and all sorts of questions about their lifestyle choices - edgies trying to be 'nice' or just endlessly pouting about the lack of edginess to your destiny are great stories.
Twists like this can be great fun, but they generally work best when player AND character knowledge is as close as possible. A tiefling learning about their hidden angelic heritage, to follow your example, is a fun twist, but in practice this loses a lot of its impact when the player knows about it all along (rather than having it genuinely surprise them when sprung upon them by their DM). Furthermore, not all players are good at maintaining the distinction between player and character knowledge. It's an important skill to develop, but not everyone starts there-and the core rules of the game should be welcoming to newcomers who might lack these skills. Accordingly, twists like this should be something experienced groups can add to their game, but the core rules shouldn't require this level of separating player from character knowledge.
There's also something to be said that it establishes what type of person each and every warlock is: someone who stumbled into power. The 2024 book seems to leave no room for a level 1 warlock who made a pact with purpose; either someone who specifically sought out a fiend to gain that power, or perhaps someone who was taken under the wing of an archfey. It's forcing every patron into the shadows at the beginning, when it can be just as fun to have a patron who is involved from the outset. And it kinda feels like every patron, even the celestial, has some kind of ulterior motive that's not benevolent.
Yeah. I have several Warlocks more or less meet their patrons by happenstance. My current warlock accidentally freed a Khayal (shadow genie - mostly a reflavoring of Efreeti due to his power coming from his flaming lantern, but my DM suggested trading out some of the expanded spells for more shadow themed ones) who got trapped in a lantern by an evil wizard, while he looking for his sister. His patron offered him the lantern that still contained some of their power and imbued him with the ability to begin channeling it but then was like “I’m rooting for you, but I’ve been trapped in here for a few decades, and I’ve got other shit to deal with. So good luck.”
We haven’t really seen them in the campaign due to being in different planes (well technically the same plane but different demiplanes) with limited ability to communicate. So most of the interaction is from his backstory where the two more or less lived together for a couple of weeks (along with my warlock’s new pet shadow elemental) while his patron regained their strength.
I like having a very hands off patron like that, just as much as having an extremely involved patron, but it feels like the current rules don’t really lend themselves to variety.
Yes, this! My warlock character (created based on 2014 rules, who I haven't even had a chance to play yet) has a backstory predicated on her knowing exactly who her patron is and approaching them with a bargain, offering herself in place of a loved one. The 'mysterious voice in the shadows' is a fun trope that can bring about some great storytelling, but it's not the story I want to tell with this character.
Hot take: If they were going to move Warlock subclasses to level 3, they should have switched them back to being Intelligence casters as was originally planned for 5e.
Okay, it's way more nuanced than that, but here's why I think that history is relevant to the conversation, and why WotC is failing to fully realise a definitive conception for what Warlock now is.
For those unaware, despite being Charisma based in previous editions, it's been said that the 5e Warlock was envisioned as Intelligence based until very late in the process - it was only switched last minute due to playtest feedback. The classes would have origianlly been far more balanced with 2 full casters for every stat and 1 half caster for every stat. Once you know this, all the flavourtext of Warlocks as 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 and 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦'𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 - and 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 - take on a different context. It's clear the original idea for the 5e Warlock was far more Lovecraftian - people who find a glimpse of eldritch magic and go down a rabbithole chasing answers, the mysterious figures behind them, and the power it can bring them. Even most of the Warlock proficiences are Intelligence based! And this has *barely* changed for the 2024 version - if anything they emphasise the knowlege seeking aspect more!
I love Charmisa based Warlocks! I love how the popular conception of the class has develped! But the thing is that Charisma being the casting stat spotlights the notion of *directly barganing with your patron for your pact magic* as something core to the class. Your magic being Charisma based feels right if your power is tied to how well you can negotiate for it! (Or charm/decieve/aggranzise yourself/prove your worth through deeds etc.) Yet instead of finally completely committing to this idea of the Warlock in the 2024 book, they went the other way. They had 10 years to consolidate the class' identity in the books after their hasty swerve. They did not.
Putting the Subclass at Level 3 instead of Level 1 dosn't make sense for a Charisma Warlock whose most important first step in their journey to power is making direct contact with an Eldritch being and forging a pact. It does however, make sense for an Intelligence Warlock whose journey begins with persuing a certain kind of forbidden magic that you come to understand is associated with a mysterious powerful figure - who you eventually knowingly persue for even greater power. Your *relationship* with your patron isn't so inherently central. The secrets related to their mysterious power, what you seek to do with them, and what extents you will go to discover them are. Understanding more about what exactly you've gotten yourself into as the campaign progresses fits! Too bad WotC haven't committed either way and have left Warlock still stuck between these ideas.
TLDR: Despite the 2014 Warlock being a bit confused in its identity due to a last minute swap from Intelligence to Charisma, WotC hasn't taken the chance to fix that. They have instead made the dissonance worse by moving all subclasses to Level 3 - failing to meaningfully implement either the Charisma Warlock that is presented or the Intelligence Warlock that residually lingers.
They should have done what Paizo did with the Psychic in PF2e and made it so you can choose either Int or Cha as your core stat rather than lock you into Cha.
I think you're spot on here. Perhaps they thought changing it to intelligence would be too big of a change while keeping it "5e, just revised"
I'm sure there's ways you can still make Charisma based Warlocks make sense with the new approach though, perhaps the first two levels are the negotiating phase, and while your knowledge seeking got the initial attention, it was your Charisma that made you stand out from the others before you and have the patron stick around long enough to form a real pact.
The *Pact* you choose should be what defines your subclass and not the patron. The *Pact* is the contract you write/negotiate/bargain over for the specific power from the Patron. It doesn't make sense otherwise.
Yes, sure, give the player a different class feature based on the Patron you choose, but that's it. Maybe a list of spells always known (like a cleric domain).
@@jodinsan Take it further like PF2e and just make it so you have a different list depending on the patron. Would be cool to see. Could even then have it so it modifies Eldritch Blast too based on your patron.
You’re legitimately overthinking it.
As a house rule at my table all classes get their subclasses at level 1. If I change it now, I might just end up with an angry mob at my table. In any case in regards to warlocks, Clerics and the likes I tend to need to know what the player intends ASAP. This is mainly due to how I create side missions based on the god worshiped and the Patron served. So as a DM being kept in the dark it would give me a lot less time to get things worked out for the game table, which kinda hurts.
The fact they specifically call out the patron as being "mysterious" is a strange restriction on RP. Like, what if I want to have had my character making a knowing decision when they signed the pact? What if their patron is their Archfey Grandma whose main stipulation is that the player calls them every weekend. What if they had to sign a deal with their patron to escape A Situation alive? Stipulating that its mysterious is a real story-killer
THIS EXACTLY! an unclear patron is a cool alternative choice for a standard option of "you knowingly made a pact with [choose entity]". It would even be fine if you still only got specific benefits at level 3, and tbf you could certainly play it that way. It's just weird that they changed this nieche way of playing a warlock to be the default...
10:54, oh ginny, ginny, ginny if you think paladain is not edgy enough then you haven't tried to play one with an oath of conquest or oath of inquistion like the one from Grim hollow setting.
Ginny lookin' extra vampiric today. Not a bad thing at all. 🧛♀
"Books" is Back !!!
I love a nerdy tome
Needs a new tee shirt/cover 😂
I'm not switching to 5.5 so it doesn't really matter, but enforcing the mystery patron irks me. It is a dynamic that can work; I've pulled it off as a DM. It shouldn't be the default though, let alone what the rules tell you you have to do.
I'm going to talk about one of my favorite warlocks I've written to demonstrate how silly this is.
He was raised in a cult to asmodeous. Starting from their 13th birthday a line of his holy symbol was carved into the children's palms. They add the last line themselves and disappear in a flash of brimstone only to return moments later with their soul sold to the lord of all hells. This warlock was rescued from his fate when the order of the gauntlet descended on his village wiping out the cutl and rescuing the children. After years living in normal society and becoming a successful merchant his pregnant wife was murdered by bandits. In a fit of rage he completed the unholy ritual summoning a devil and bargaining his soul for the magical ability to take his revenge. But hur dur di dur, I don't know who that voice is for all I know it might be Ki-Rin.
That's dumb. Maybe it's asmodeous but he's just as likely as all the other 1000s of entities that could be capable of being patrons.
Insisting on locking these choices to the same level for every class boggles my mind. Too each their own, but I agree with everything you say here and much of it applies to the cleric, too.
*3.5 warlocks looking around nervously without chosen patrons and much better powers.*
House Rule: You only get to talk to a Servant of the Patron till you have fullfilled some requirement (that get's fullfiled right before you level up to level 3)
A bit like with the Butler in the Dark Urge Origin from BG3
Being a warlock should be like joining an MLM, for levels 1 and 2 you are only interacting with the next person up from you on the pyramid. Once there is good buy in then you learn whose the boss!
Now i know MLM in this instance probably means multi-level marketing but my mind immediately went to the other MLM, lol.
I remember a similar situation in the 5e PHB with Barbarians. Under that class there was a blurb that outright stated you had come from a nomadic tribe or something like that. But then they also had Backgrounds, and you were free to choose whichever one you wanted. You could even be a Noble!
I concluded that the part saying you were a nomad or a tribesman was just flavor text, a suggestion. Your Background is what actually determines where you come from. I made a Barbarian who was actually just a particularly fierce warrior from a noble house, because that seemed cool to me. And that was a fun character!
If the 2024 blurb implying your Warlock doesn't actually know her patron is in a similar spot, then I'd make the same presumption. It's flavor text, a mere suggestion, and you're free to ignore it and have the pact formalized in your backstory if you'd prefer that.
If you choose to follow that flavor text, that could be an interesting concept, too. Maybe your character was in some real trouble, and felt something reaching out to her and offering her the power to get out of it... for an unspecified price. She accepted, and now she's bound by a pact to do who-knows-what for some mysterious, shadowy figure. Lots of potential for fun, angsty, melodramatic intrigue, there.
Seeing as most of my campaigns start at level 3, this shouldn't be an issue at my table. Still, I agree with these changes being a big issue for the class' identity
Another way of putting it:
A warlock is studying "occult" magic but only the most basic of basic like a wizard in a sense. But until they perform a "specific ritual" for more power they have not yet signed the dotted line.
Yeah, like the flavor of the Eldritch Adept feat. You're flipping through creepier and creepier books until you find something with actual power.
The plot twist if it's a unicorn tho
Maybe they wanted to become a wizard until they realised how much work it is to actually study Magic so at level 3 they get fed up with learning and cheat by making some dodgy contract...
I play in a 7yo campaign that has a warlock player who doesn't (...know they...) have a patron.
Actually I misspoke I should say their *character,* not their player.
I feel like they should have changed the flavor of the warlock subclasses if they were starting at level 3. For example if the class had a paragraph or 2 about creating a patron and your subclass was a specialization that your patron bestows to you rather than the subclass for the patron itself i think this would work much better. It would also allow for more implicit flexibility in the class. Some of my favorite warlocks have patrons that are dead family members or were given power by the leaders of an organization they served. If they went with this flavor it could encourage these unique patron ideas even more.
Also second note I just came up with, this still allows the idea that you don't know you patron.
In fact it might work even better for that cause you still get your subclass choice and control of your character and the dm can create the patron in narrative without ruining it
Not sure this is the best way to introduce a warlock to a new player but as an enjoyer of unusual warlock relationships I do think there’s something neat about a character having reached out in a time of need and *something* taking up that ill defined offer.
You’ve bonded with something that grants you power but the connection is staticky and you spend your first few levels tuning into their frequency and discovering the vibe together with your gm
If I were to run this for a player who wanted to both keep the mystery and contribute to the patron I’d propose a series of visions/questions in the early game where they get to provide some aspect of the tone and flavor of the scene thereby informing the sort of vibes their patron brings in game without necessarily needing to decide who they are beforehand
-when you cast your spell your senses register the power of your patron like synesthesia what do you smell? What’s the texture?
-your vision loses focus and suddenly your environment has shifted dramatically what do you see?
6:00 "It's just sloppy design" really describes the 2024 remake as a whole
There's a different (and in my eyes bigger) problem connected to this.
Their fix to not knowing from the beginning "forces" patron to be a mysterious entity... this means that you roleplay wise could not make a Warlock who has made a calculated decision about pledging their loyalty to a patron...
A deal with the devil, to save your loved one... sure you can argue that you could do that with a mystery patron, but you have to be a certain kind of person to accept this from an entity that you haven't seen or know what is...
Making them mysterious is a very cool story option, but it should be an option.
And yes, as you say, you could just decide from level 1, but that is bad game design that makes it feel clunky and might scare people away.
This change concerned me the moment the test material came out with this change, and it concerned me even more when they stuck with it.
There's a reason that the classes who are basically defined by their subclass, gets it at level 1 in the 2014 version...
Your Paladin example is a lot better, but still an issue... many (especially new) players aren't gonna read all the text. They wanna get their character ready, so skim through and find everything that seems like "mechanics"... not the "you finish your Paladin oath at level 3, but start considering incorporation of oathy things for your character from the start".
BAD WIZARDS
Honestly I never understood why we don't get subclasses at Lv. 1
"You know I'm brat! I'm brat! I'm really, really brat..."
~Ginny, probably
The problem I see with the "unkown Patron" story is, it is probably cool once
The patron is an essential part of the warlocks story and players like to think of creative ways on how theyve met their patron or why they made the pact
Maybe the archfey warlock sought out a hag to cure his daughter of a mysterious disease. Maybe the hexblade warlock was a thief that unkowingly stole a cursed sword
Now it sounds like the warlock foolishly sold his soul without even knowing the first thing about their patron
You go to different patrons for different reasons and this way it all melds down to: "You are in a cult for funsies, worshipping something of which you are not quite sure what it is tho"
This is what leads to the age old DnD tradition of "I'm not playing the new edition"
I believe official voices at WotC have (finally) said not too long ago that, in their design, the first two levels are meant to be the tutorial for people who don't even know how to throw dice and need to take it slow with the very basics, while it is actually intended for people who have the slightest amount of experience to start at level 3.
Which, in the case we're dealing with here, would mean that anyone who's able to consider there might be a problem is expected to start at the level where the problem would not exist.
But that leaves the question: why is none of this written in the PHB then?
When they talk at length about how it was so important that we get a brand new introduction about what the game being played at a table is supposed to look like, or how much effort has been put into making information easier to digest, from the glossary to the very choice of fonts and so on, how comes they left out - no, removed - indications so pivotal to how the experience will play out and how to not have it go wrong? Are people expected to go fishing for design commentary on UA-cam? Isn't this new PHB, benefitting from ten more years of experience, supposed to be better at presenting all the information actually needed to play the game?
(I know the unironic answer has a good chance of simply being set deadlines and having fired most of the team before the book was finished... But the simple fact that such questions can be raised is telling something.)
I think... I think WotC doesn't know what it's doing. I love D&D. But so much of this is baffling, and it feels like these decisions were made by people who maybe don't play the game
My beef, 5:25 is that this is a problem for all classes, not just Warlock. The vast majority of players read ahead in the handbook, that is how we get familiar with a class and what it will become, subclasses included. 90% of players metagame this way. I think by changing Warlock they are given the same flexibility. Like, who hasn't gone into a game thinking they would roll a sub class and then change gears randomly? That is the magic of the Patron's voice being mysterious.
As someone who started playing D&D on 5th edition with a warlock, it does feels that this rule is meant for beginner.
Choosing my patreon was the hardest choice when I got to create my first character ever. I didn't know clearly the lore of the game and I felt that the book should be clearer with examples of patreons to choose for newcomers.
In a way, I'd say that the level 3 patreon is a good option for newcomers, but I do agree on the mentionned issue.
They are explicitly telling experienced players to start at level 3 now too, which further makes it clear to me, that level 1 and 2 are there to present less up front decision making for players new to D&D and roleplaying.
You didn't have to pick a specific patron in 5e either, you had to pick the type of patron. You didn't need to know their name or anything.
My biggest issue is that a Warlock doesn't have powers without a Patron. Not involving them Storywise for the first Two levels is one thing but without their patron, Warlocks have no magic, no abilities, nothing. If there is no Patron, there is no warlock.
I feel like if they were to switch all subclasses to being accessible at the same level across classes, it should have been level 1. Clerics, Sorcerers, and Warlocks all get it there already, but I think it would work for other classes too. Paladins I've always thought should get their oath at first level simply for thematic reasons, but I think mechanically I think it would also be a huge upgrade across all classes. It would make multiclassing feel like less of a slog, so you're not waiting for certain abilities to come online before you can actually do the things you're excited about. The same thing goes for single class characters. It would make each character feel very unique right off the bat, so multiple people could play the same class at the start of a campaign without feeling redundant. Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters I feel would especially benefit from this.
It's always been weird to me that Warlock's sub-classes explicitly bind their narrative choices. Every other class can play against type. You can have an assassin rogue who's a burly thug, or a war cleric from a healing temple, or a paladin of a peaceful order with an oath of vengeance. But a warlock can't. Your patron defines both your backstory and your mechanics. I think Patron choice and Pact of the Tome/Chain/etc should have been swapped; Patrons are the starting choice with narrative weight and ribbon abilities, and the Pacts should be your sub-class with detailed mechanical progression.
All the warlock subclasses can also be against type, what do you mean? Take celestial for example, just because your patron is a celestial doesn’t mean you have to have a celestial themed campaign, maybe your celestial had been in hiding in the nine hells, and had become twisted by her environment. Celestial powers in a dark campaign. Besides, paladins literally lose their powers when they play against type… so… how is it any different there?
@@Zhaaligkeer A Celestial patron is "good" by definition. You can't really play evil character if you have to do good acts for your patron. To do otherwise, the DM would have to reskin and homebrew for you (a small amount, but it's still the only class that has this problem).
Instead, the Celestial subclass's mechanics could be Pact of Flame (or whatever). Then you could play a Fiend or Old One healer warlock. The narrative weight is separated from the mechanics, then they can intersect in interesting ways.
Paladin only have to rationalize their behavior to their oaths, they haven't had to literally "be good or else" for several editions. You can have an evil or a good paladin rationalizing Oath of Vengeance or Oath of Ancients. Clerics have an abstract Life Domain, not Cleric of Good Deity.
@@RobertN734the 2014 rule book says the patron may not even know you have made a pact with them, allowing you to essentially tap into their power without making a Faustian deal, but maybe making some other kind of sacrifice. You could have a celestial warlock that stole the power of god rules as written. Or I’ve seen people roleplay celestial black ops. The celestial wants something “neutral” done but they don’t want to know how you did it they just want results without breaking their *own* alignment
@@RobertN734 Counterpoint; by that logic, since a Fiendish patron is "Evil" by definition, then you can't really play a good character if you have to do evil acts for your patron.
Does that statement sound right to you? Surely you've seen your share of warlocks who were shanghaied into the deal with a fiend, or reached out in a moment of desperation, or performed the rites in a fit of madness, or where sworn in some other way against their will.
I'm not saying it's impossible to make an evil Celestial Warlock, but you need a lot more GM consent and participation than other classes need for similar ideas. Of course advanced groups are going to house rule and tweak to their heart's content.
Really what I'm pointing out is that the game mechanics of being a Celestial Warlock (getting the heal feat, the spell list) are bound up in this narrative conundrum. By contrast, if your evil party needs a healer, an evil Life Domain Cleric barely warrants an explanation.
Just stick with 5e and home brew, hasbro sunk this ship and i ain't going down with it
Or just. Move to a competently designed system.
Reminder that D&D doubled down on backstories not really being a thing at level 1. Level 1 is the time to be the in-training version of your character concept.
Which is to say, start all your games at level 3 or higher, because 5E2024 is going to feel extra bad otherwise.
Still think it's weird with sorcerers especially as someone that loves the wild magic sorcerer, like suddenly this sorcerer that presumably had done magic for years at this point has random events happening, it's not like they have gone half an adventure and then random things start happening when they cast spells idk just seems like a really weird choice to me
Agree that this is super dumb. Per Jeremy Crawford, the intent for Warlock Invocations are side bits of arcana they pick up beyond the scope of their patron. The problem is that this is not communicated effectively at all in the class design
we need justice for paladins
It's not that your character doesn't know, it's that the 6e patrons are more stingy and make you wait.
“Prove yourself useful, random person”
But then you should know your subclass from the start. You should be aiming to impress a Fiend from level 1, and only succeed at level 3 when a specific Fiend contacts you, not "you're trying to impress something unknown, and you find out what took notice of you at level 3."
@@BobBobson You should know your patron from the start. They're the ones who taught you to be a Warlock. It makes no sense for patrons to be moved to level 3. They aren't an expansion on your talents. They taught you everything.
Adjective: brat (comparative more brat, superlative most brat)
(neologism) Characteristic of a confident and assertive woman.
From Wiktionary... I didn't know either! 😁For the record, I think it should be bratter and brattest.
basically girlboss
Yea, what happened to this word? it used to be common linguo for an ill-mannered annoying (male) child
The editing in this one fucking had me in a different way! not to mention Ginny's beautiful comedic timing, at this point I'm not even sure i'm here for DnD even though I do love it but rather I think i'm mostly here for Ginny just being a hilarious human being.
I can see the level 3 subclass working for certain characters and story arcs, but not for others. For example, multiclassing into Warlock. My first D&D character was a Druid that established a relationship with Baba Yaga, and as such multiclassed into Warlock with Archfey. It would have been odd to have to wait till level 3 multiclassed Warlock to see that patron influence when it was clear and had already been well established who would be her patron.
2014: patron is most important
2024: patron is fluff, get over it
I just learned that clerics also now pick their class at level 3 and I think that's idiotic
You forget the fundamental fact about D&D from decades back . . . if you don't like a rule or system then don't use it, play the way that makes you happiest.
My two ideas for DMs to use would be: 1. the patron is very low contact or does 3rd party messages until 3rd level (They're powerful and busy AF!) & B. Multiple voices ring out to the warlock, one of each patron but at level 3, one sounds louder than the rest and that patron's requests become clear.
I've never had a player play warlock from first lvl. But I've had patrons offer them a chance to malti class. Which seems like it'd be weird to malticlass in the one addition.