D&D General There can be only ONE: Bard v. Warlock

[Yaarel]

Assumption #4: The game breaks up "Magic" into the realm s of the Arcane, the Divine, Nature, Psychic, and the Occult.

I am leaning toward four power sources:
• Martial (nonmagic)
• Arcane (protoscientific magic)
• Divine (poetic magic)
• Primal (animism, souls)

Psionics is part of the Primal power source, the aura of a personal soul. Rocks and trees can also have a kind of soul.



"Occult" might be any of these power sources − and mainly refers to whether the magic tradition is secretive versus publicly available.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not sure why a bard would be a mystic class, or nature magic focused.

Aside from it beginning that way in the game? Historic or at least mythological accounts of Bards' abilities, and the cultures the archetype stems from (primarily celtic, germanic, and nordic) all point to a more "primal"/Nature magic type of magic-wielder.

Someone who sings or chants their magic into creation, who "calls upon" the magic to happen.

The Arcane caster with full spell progression D&D has made of it is definitely not my flavor/take of what a Bard is, was, or should be.

And warlocks don't channel magic -- they are taught secrets no mortals are meant to know. they are still "wizards" but without any of that pesky studying.

[EDIT: Sorry missed this in the initial response and totally intended to respond to it.]
Warlocks, from where I'm sitting and flavoring, absolutely "channel magic." They are being GIVEN the energy and know-how from their "Patron." They are "imbued" with magical power...not something of their own. Much more like a Cleric. Much more like a Druid. To my mind, than person who learns/figures it out on their own.

It comes down to "what is "Magic" and the various "types" of Magic? Why aren't healing or "speak with animals" spells on the Arcane spell lists? Why isn't (traditionally) "fireball" or "fly" on the Divine magic lists? Are they just arbitrary labels for supernatural things from legends and literature? Or are they actual different FORCES/ENERGIES that are transmitted/accessed/harnessed and released using DIFFERENT methods.

A Cleric is IMBUED with their power by the god/gods...through their devotion and faith and all of that...but it is GRANTED power. Not something they master or access themselves. For me, warlocks are exactly the same...just not receiving power from "gods."

That is, for me, all a warlock is/ever will be. They are the "cheaters" of Arcane magic. Given their abilities, rather than having to practice and master them. Shown how to access them....and capable of repeating an incantation and getting the gestures right (because their PATRON gave them that) to make "the things that wizards make" happen.

But warlocks don't function out of some supernatural understanding/unraveling of the cosmos or innate talent or inbred power (if one likes their wizard/magic-users defined that way) or hard-pressed intellect containing multitudes mastering the unfathomable. They function because their PATRON wills it, gives it to them, and makes/allows it happen.

That's what the modern understanding of D&D Warlocks do. They are beholden, and (if in my game at all) will be forced into a consequential "pact," not just some background or story element that means nothing in play with the warlock not being accountable to anyone for anything.
[/EDIT]

So, neither. Make an elemental bender instead.

"Avatar the Last Airbender" with the numbers filed off is not really of interest to me. Though I do have Elementalist specific wizards intended for a supplemental.

But thanks for your input.

PS: Why does everyone separate the cleric and druid?

Because worshiping and calling upon gods/deities, as specific personalities, to conduct your "divine rites and magics" is not really the same, again as my tastes and expectations and knowledge of the class -both myth/legend/literary and as presented in D&D- as what druids do.

It has taken FAR too many editions of the game to understand and present "Divine" magic/spells and "Nature" magic/spells as the very different things and themes they are (and have been for my homebrew world for quite a long time).

 

[Minigiant]

Well, not a Warlock or Bard. hahaha.

The Wizard classes are:

• Mage: the default/generalist arcane magic-user. (Optional choice of 2 specialists available at 1st level: Illusionist or what D&D would term an "Abjurer." But a Mage need not be either.)
• Psychic: the mental powers class. (Discipline area choice necessary at character creation, additional ones gained at advanced levels).
• and a Swordmage/Magus/fighter-magicuser mutli-class archetype. Weapon-wielder who studies/trains in arcane magic, primarily, for use in combat....anything from ye olde Elvish chain wearing Fighter/Magic-user to a "Witcher" to a "Gandalfian wizard who is remarkably effective at wielding a sword."

Then Warlock.

The D&D Bard itself is feat tree pretending to be a class.

The D&D Bard is a Song/Inspiration gimmick on a nerfed Mage that gets healing spells and better weapons.

With a Swordmage/Magus existing, you can replicate most of the Bard with Song feat and a feat that gives healing spells.

The Warlock at least assumes a level of extra various weird abilities as Invocations and has a history of 2 editions of having it's own spellcasting system.

 

[Reynard]

Because Turn Undead and Wild Shape are not equal in power and Driven spells and Druidic spells are different in theme.

I totally think there is room for a class who's schtick is shapeshifting; I just don't think it is the druid. 2E did it right: druid was just another specialty priest.

 

[Yaarel]

I totally think there is room for a class who's schtick is shapeshifting; I just don't think it is the druid. 2E did it right: druid was just another specialty priest.

The Wildshape could be a Channel Divinity, allowing the Nature domain Cleric to access some shapeshifting. Meanwhile, the sacred traditions such animism, theism, etcetera is something the Cleric class needs to be able to accommodate anyway.

It seems possible for the Cleric class to reabsorb the Druid class. Are there any important reasons why not? − that the Druid class needs to do but the Cleric class couldnt?

Even the words "cleric" and "clergy" are the appropriate terms for different kinds of sacred traditions.

 

[Reynard]

The Wildshape could be a Channel Divinity, allowing the Nature domain Cleric to access some shapeshifting. Meanwhile, the religious traditions such animism, theism, etcetera is something the Cleric class needs to be able to accommodate anyway.

I should clarify: I don't mind the druid being able to take animal forms. What I don't like is turning the druid into the combat monster shape shifter.

It seems possible for the Cleric class to reabsorb the Druid class. Are there any important reasons why not? − that the Druid class needs to do but the Cleric class couldnt?

I'd prefer a priest class that absorbed both the cleric (a specific sort of priest) and the druid (also a specific sort of priest). the cleric thematic aspect of a knightly priest is served perfectly well by the paladin.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Warlock, because it's more interesting than Bard--effectively the "build your own class" option. Hell, you could probably make up a Bardic Pact (Pact of the Song, perhaps?) that could allow access to Bard-related things. There's already precedent for Invocations that grant skills and ally buffs. I see little to no reason why, if you absolutely have to have exactly 12 classes no more and no less, that the Warlock couldn't just subsume the Bard and represent both at once.

Besides, the Magical Secrets feature feels rather more Warlock-y than Bard-y, don't you think?

 

[Yaarel]

I should clarify: I don't mind the druid being able to take animal forms. What I don't like is turning the druid into the combat monster shape shifter.

I'd prefer a priest class that absorbed both the cleric (a specific sort of priest) and the druid (also a specific sort of priest). the cleric thematic aspect of a knightly priest is served perfectly well by the paladin.

I can work with that.


For a "combat monster shapeshifter" class. One way to go about it is to design a "Vampire subclass" and a "Werewolf subclass", to get sense of the high level possibilities. Then with the structure in mind, apply it to other kinds of shapes, including elemental forms.

 

[Reynard]

For a "combat monster shapeshifter" class. One way to go about it is to design a "Vampire subclass" and a "Werewolf subclass", to get sense of the high level possibilities. Then with the structure in mind, apply it to other kinds of shapes, including elemental forms.

There is a lot of room for non-class specific "subclasses" and vampire and werewolf are good examples. Sort of a hybrid between Prestige Classes and Archetypes.

 

[steeldragons]

I prefer the Bard narrative. I prefer the Warlock mechanics.

Bardlock?

There could be something here...