Mike Mearls talks 'bout Warlocks

[OgreBattle]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... 2F20140303

Last week, we rolled out some information on the sorcerer. This week, we talk about the warlock in D&D Next.

As with the sorcerer, our initial playtest feedback on the warlock showed that players liked some parts of the class's presentation but were disappointed that it didn't have stronger ties to its previous incarnations. We thus went back to the two earlier versions of the warlock, along with the binder from 3rd Edition's Tome of Magic, for the design of this class. In its final incarnation, the warlock blends some of the concepts of the 4th Edition and 3rd Edition warlock. It also incorporates concepts from the binder that influenced the warlock's 4e design.

A warlock forges a pact with an otherworldly patron. That patron grants the warlock magical power in the form of a limited number of spells—far fewer than either the sorcerer or the wizard. However, a warlock also gains a number of innate magical abilities called eldritch invocations. These invocations allow a warlock to cast spells as rituals, to gain unique magical powers, and to use specific spells at will. Invocations are the warlock's signature magical ability. You can think of them as cantrips or feats on steroids—powerful abilities that a warlock can use again and again.

A warlock uses spells in a slightly different manner than other arcane casters. The warlock gains a small number of spells per day, but all those spells are cast at a spell slot level determined by the warlock's level. A high-level warlock casts fewer spells than a wizard of the same level, but each of those spells is cast at a heightened level of potency. Warlocks select spells from the class's spell list, in addition to gaining bonus spells based on the entity with which they forge a pact.

A warlock chooses to forge one of three pacts with an otherworldly patron, granting the character a unique set of abilities. The pact of the blade allows a warlock to create a weapon of pure magic to wield in battle. The pact of the chain pledges a creature such as a quasit or a pseudodragon to the warlock's service. The pact of the tome grants the warlock access to deeper arcane power. A warlock can choose to match any of these three pacts to any type of patron. Some eldritch invocations augment a warlock's pact abilities.

More durable than sorcerers and wizards, warlocks are on a par with clerics and rogues in combat. As loners and outcasts, many warlocks have learned to survive without the overt use of magic, and they have access to light armor and simple weapons.

When looking at D&D's three arcane casters—the wizard, the warlock, and the sorcerer—you can see a trend emerge. As students of magic, wizards have the most flexibility in how they employ that magic. They master more spells and can prepare a wider range of spells. When faced with a specific situation, a wizard has the best chance of having the right spell for the job.

Sorcerers are specialists who master fewer spells, but who can shape and amplify those spells to make them even more effective. When faced with a specific situation or challenge, a sorcerer twists spells to suit that challenge.

Though warlocks have less flexibility in their spellcasting than wizards or sorcerers, their capacity for supporting their spellcasting with unique tricks and focus gives them an edge. A warlock faced with a specific situation doesn't worry about having the right spell at hand, but instead uses the class's unique features and advanced spellcasting power to overcome any challenge.

Sounds to me like their intention is for Warlock to be the Fighter/Mage kinda class.

[Josh_Kablack]

That actually doesn't sound unreasonable in and of itself.

I can foresee a plethora of highly problematic issues which are likely to result from trying to merge that idea to concepts from prior editions of D&D, but the concept of

Wizard: "I have just the spell for that."
Sorcerer: "I can modify a spell to handle that"
Warlock: "Eh, if I don't have a spell for it, I can stab it or throw a few eldritch blasts at it"

Isn't an inherently flawed way to differentiate those classes.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Not surprising, since that's what D&D Essentials 4.5E D&D did with their Warlocks -- christened Hexblades. Not like they needed yet another arcane melee swordsmaster as they already had Swordmages, Artificers, Bards, and later Bladesingers. But this revelation is rather prosaic in light of Mearls' previous work.

[sake]

Not surprising, since that's what D&D Essentials 4.5E D&D did with their Warlocks -- christened Hexblades. Not like they needed yet another arcane melee swordsmaster as they already had Swordmages, Artificers, Bards, and later Bladesingers. But this revelation is rather prosaic in light of Mearls' previous work.

Thanks to 4.5's hard-on for role protection and blind hatred of classes using other classes' stuff. It really *did* need another arcane melee swordsmaster because none of the guys you listed were actually a damage-y class without a lot of fiddly feats, stolen class powers, and whoring elemental damage types bits that could be nerfed (and in many cases, were) at any time under the 4E's paradigm.

My favorite bit was when a beta test document added a feat that gave the normal warlock the pact blade gimmick, instantly making it a thousand times better and more popular as a arcane melee swordsmaster than the actual Hexblade class. WotC's reaction was to, of course, remove the feat rather than review why the fuck every one liked it better on the old warlock.


Edit: Also, http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/d-d-sta ... 0786965595 and http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/d-d-pla ... 0786965601 think they'll make the actual release dates?

[OgreBattle]

That actually doesn't sound unreasonable in and of itself.

I can foresee a plethora of highly problematic issues which are likely to result from trying to merge that idea to concepts from prior editions of D&D, but the concept of

Wizard: "I have just the spell for that."
Sorcerer: "I can modify a spell to handle that"
Warlock: "Eh, if I don't have a spell for it, I can stab it or throw a few eldritch blasts at it"

Isn't an inherently flawed way to differentiate those classes.

It sounds like Sorceror will have built in metamagic. Maybe it'll be something like the wizard has color spray and fireball in his arsenal, but the sorc only picked up fireball but he can add a dazing effect to it when he levels up.

Though I don't see what's the difference in concept between a warlock and cleric, both of them are agents of otherworldy powers.

[Koumei]

Warlocks are spooky

[shadzar]

and how does even more arcane magic fuckery make the fighter a class that can still exist?