[5E] Warlock Patron: The Pied Jester

[Prak]

Ok, yes, I know. 5e, boo hiss. But, eh, it works to fill the game void if you have a group you like, and honestly, while I think the 5e warlock could use, say, one more spell slot overall, I do genuinely like the 5e warlock over the 3e one.

And musing about clowns for something else yesterday made me think about making a clown warlock subclass. So I've been working on that. Still need a 14th level ability, but I figure this is a decent start, and maybe people would find it entertaining/an excuse to call me names.

Edit: I've made a few mechanical changes. Struckout text is removed, underlined text is what I've added/changed the struckout text to.

Otherworldly Patron: The Pied Jester

Expanded Spell List
1st– Feather Fall*, Tasha’s Hideous Laughter
2nd– Animal Messenger*, Phantasmal Force
3rd– Feign Death*, Leomund’s Tiny Hut*
4th– Compulsion, Staggering Smite
5th– Mislead, Seeming
See Pied Jester Spells for particular cosmetic alterations to some of these spells

Art of Pies and Japes
At 1st level, you gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Performance, and learn the Vicious Mockery and Conjure Pie and Seltzer (see Pied Jester Spells) cantrips, which counts as a warlock cantrip, but does not count against your number of cantrips known. You may use the invocations Agonizing Blast, Grasp of Hadar, Lance of Lethargy and Repelling Blast to augment your Vicious Mockery cantrip as if it were Eldritch Blast (treating a failed save by the target as hitting your target for the latter three).
Additionally, as a warlock of the Pied Jester, your eldritch blast takes the form of flung pies, sprayed seltzer water, and other such clown artforms, and leaves a clinging residue to your targets which deals damage equal to half that initially dealt to the target on their next turn. This clinging residue obscures their vision and dampens their pride, and until their next turn, where they can automatically wipe it off, they have disadvantage on perception checks, and attacks against them are made at advantage.

Slapstick
Starting at 6th level, you have learned the art of taking hard hits with nothing more than a bruised ego and some scrapes. You are resistant to bludgeoning damage. When an enemy you can see hits you with an attack, you may use your reaction to halve the damage. Additionally, as part of the clown art of slapstick, you learn to turn wild performative flailing motions into great feats of acrobatics, and can likewise use this to entertain, doubling your proficiency bonus for any Acrobatics checks, as well as Performance checks made to perform slapstick, acrobatics, and similar circus routines.

Pratfall
Starting at 10th level, when you would be reduced to 0 hp, you can use your reaction to fall prone and halve the damage taken, while also dealing half the damage of the attack to your attacker.use your slapstick feature to reduce the damage of a hit, you may fall prone. If you do, your attacker takes the same damage you take (after reduction), as your pratfall redirects some of the attack back to them. You may use this ability a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier, at which point you must take a long rest before you can use it again.
While you are prone, whether after having used this ability or having dropped prone normally (but not if an effect outside of your control has rendered you prone), you can move at your normal speed, and take the Dodge action as a bonus action on each of your turns as you performatively flail and stumble. While you are prone, you may stand up without spending any movement.

Pied Jester Spells
A few spells take on particular appearances when cast by a warlock of the Pied Jester:

Vicious Mockery
If a warlock of the Pied Jester has a pie in hand when they cast Vicious Mockery, they may elect to fling the pie at their target instead of verbally insulting them. If they do so, the pie strikes automatically, but has no further effect on its own (even if it was conjured with Conjure Pie and Seltzer).

Feather Fall
When a warlock of the Pied Jester casts this spell, it has its normal mechanical effect. However, rather than slowing the speed of the fall, the target falls at full force, and flattens slightly upon impact, but does not take any damage while the spell is active. The target may land on their feet, or on their front or back, at the caster’s option, but regardless, they immediately regain their footing, and the method of landing is purely cosmetic.

Animal Messenger
When a warlock of the Pied Jester casts this spell, rather than compelling a nearby actual animal to deliver the message, the caster creates a balloon animal, which may have any shape they desire but is still Tiny in size. If the mechanical stats of the messenger come into play, simply use the closest approximate beast.

Feign Death
When a warlock of the Pied Jester casts this spell, the target goes through a short, overly dramatic performance of dropping dead, at which point it lays spread out, with a daisy clutched between their hands on their chest. This performance takes no time worth tracking.

Leomund’s Tiny Hut
When a warlock of the Pied Jester casts this spell, rather than a small dome of monochromatic force, they conjure a miniature circus tent, with alternating stripes of any two colors of the caster’s choice.

New Spell
Conjure Pie and Seltzer
Conjuration Cantrip
Casting Time: Bonus Action
Range: Touch
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous

You create a single pie of the type of your choice in your hand or a spray of about a pint of carbonated water (which may be flavored, if you desire). The pie may be flung at a target within 20 ft as a separate ranged spell attack which deals no damage but imposes disadvantage on their next action, and persuasion checks until the pie is washed off, which takes an action. The seltzer may be sprayed at an adjacent target as part of casting, but has no effect save for extinguishing any small fires in the target’s space.
The pie may be eaten, in which case it satisfies hunger as if it were a single ration. If not thrown or eaten, the pie spoils in 24 hours. The seltzer, other than being carbonated and perhaps flavored, is normal water.

[JonSetanta]

Well, I enjoyed it. Not sure if I'd be allowed to PLAY it but I would at least try.

[merxa]

Pratfall requires a cool down -- once per short or long rest. Dealing half damage back to attacker seems a little off theme to me, and could create some odd moments, especially for range attacks. I would maybe also add some explicit language that the character can make a performance vs insight check to appear dead.

Slapstick, tracking damage source in 5e can be a little tricky at times, especially with monsters. To make it easier I would just give all 3 and explicitly list it as nonmagical -- so resistance to nonmagical B,P,S damage.

Conjure Pie and Seltzer -- I would remove hunger satisfaction. It is a cantrip so it will trivialize a level one spell goodberry (and step on the druids toes). Besides, clown pies are just all whip cream and no filling.

Even with the reskin, I think Tiny Hut is also off theme -- Jesters typically are at the mercy of their lord for housing, and without one are cast to the wilds to fend for themselves. Bonus spells that I think are more on theme for level 3... Nondetection, Stinking Cloud, Protection from Energy,

Art of Pies and Japes, drop the lingering 50% damage next turn, first it's too good, second tracking how much damage you did the last round will slow down play, and there's no language for someone who wants to avoid the extra damage.

[Omegonthesane]

Even with the reskin, I think Tiny Hut is also off theme -- Jesters typically are at the mercy of their lord for housing, and without one are cast to the wilds to fend for themselves.

This is a clown warlock. Clowns have a different socioeconomic situation to jesters.

[JonSetanta]

Are mimes a kind of clown?

Mime in an invisible box.

[merxa]

Even with the reskin, I think Tiny Hut is also off theme -- Jesters typically are at the mercy of their lord for housing, and without one are cast to the wilds to fend for themselves.

This is a clown warlock. Clowns have a different socioeconomic situation to jesters.

The write up uses clown and jester interchangeably, and the class is called 'The Pied Jester'. Besides it's the ring master or carnival barker that would be more on theme for setting up the the circus tent. It's a minor NIT, I bring it up mostly because it can feel a little bit like Tiny Hut was put there because it's a great spell when stinking cloud or nondetection would be something more expected from such a character, but that's just my opinion.

Phantom Steed could also fit, could reskin it as a clown (car) wagon, or even rewrite phantom steed explicitly and allow it to carry a small group.

[Prak]

Pratfall requires a cool down -- once per short or long rest.

You're right. I was basing it on the Undead patron in Van Richten's and forgot to include a cool down.

Dealing half damage back to attacker seems a little off theme to me, and could create some odd moments, especially for range attacks.

That's intended, actually. The idea is that with your pratfall, which is a magical effect rather than a normal pratfall, because you get it for being a warlock, you are able to kick some of the attack back at the attacker.

I would maybe also add some explicit language that the character can make a performance vs insight check to appear dead.

Maybe. I'll think about it.

Slapstick, tracking damage source in 5e can be a little tricky at times, especially with monsters. To make it easier I would just give all 3 and explicitly list it as nonmagical -- so resistance to nonmagical B,P,S damage.

Hm. I guess I'm used to 3.x, where natural attacks are specifically b, p or s damage. I had originally made it resistance to B, P and S, but decided that the idea of using slapstick to be resistant to being stabbed or slashed was enough of a flavor stretch to not be worth making the ability less able to pass muster.

Conjure Pie and Seltzer -- I would remove hunger satisfaction. It is a cantrip so it will trivialize a level one spell goodberry (and step on the druids toes). Besides, clown pies are just all whip cream and no filling.

Goodberry has a healing component that feels like the bigger deal there. This is just "you can always conjure a pie, and if you choose to eat it, it is real food." And, yes, in real life, clown pies are just whipped cream in a pie shell (if that, they may be shaving cream in a pie tin, but in a lot of literature, you often find instances where it's a real pie. And I don't see much reason why magic clowns can't conjure apple or cherry pies.

Art of Pies and Japes, drop the lingering 50% damage next turn, first it's too good, second tracking how much damage you did the last round will slow down play, and there's no language for someone who wants to avoid the extra damage.

A few people have mentioned this. Is it really that much extra work to write down or just remember "I did 6 damage last turn?" I'm genuinely asking. If I'm GMing, sure, I'm not going to remember the amount of damage done by a specific attack, but I'd also just set a die aside showing how much damage was dealt. But I recognize I am not the norm. When I'm playing, I can generally remember how much my last attack did. But, again, I'm not the norm. Maybe the next turn damage could just be, like, your charisma mod?

Even with the reskin, I think Tiny Hut is also off theme -- Jesters typically are at the mercy of their lord for housing, and without one are cast to the wilds to fend for themselves.

This is a clown warlock. Clowns have a different socioeconomic situation to jesters.

The write up uses clown and jester interchangeably, and the class is called 'The Pied Jester'. Besides it's the ring master or carnival barker that would be more on theme for setting up the the circus tent. It's a minor NIT, I bring it up mostly because it can feel a little bit like Tiny Hut was put there because it's a great spell when stinking cloud or nondetection would be something more expected from such a character, but that's just my opinion.

Phantom Steed could also fit, could reskin it as a clown (car) wagon, or even rewrite phantom steed explicitly and allow it to carry a small group.

The patron is called a jester, but also, that is not, necessarily, meant to imply the figure is a formal jester in a court. Just as "pied" is not meant to imply the patron has been hit with a pie. "Pied Jester" is more meant in a "Person who jests and wears multicolored clothes" sense.

Now, clowns and jesters fulfil essentially the same social role, but they do have their distinctions. However, that said, I would not oppose someone who wanted to say they analogous enough to make them near synonyms. They sort of are, just in different societal structures.

But all that aside, circus tents and clowns occupy the same conceptual realm. And occasionally, clowns will serve as ringmasters (tho, apparently, they are specifically referred to as MCs in such case). But, yeah. clown-locks can conjure small magical circus tents.

edit:
Oh- mimes and clowns. Yes, mimes are, so far as I'm aware, a form of clown.

[merxa]

That's intended, actually. The idea is that with your pratfall, which is a magical effect rather than a normal pratfall, because you get it for being a warlock, you are able to kick some of the attack back at the attacker.

If you keep half damage back, I would type the damage as psychic, with a 1/long rest cool down no save seems ok, if maybe a little strong. (they are already avoiding being dropped).

Hm. I guess I'm used to 3.x, where natural attacks are specifically b, p or s damage. I had originally made it resistance to B, P and S, but decided that the idea of using slapstick to be resistant to being stabbed or slashed was enough of a flavor stretch to not be worth making the ability less able to pass muster.

I think resistance to B in actual play would see lots of table variation, and wouldn't even come up that often -- most monster attacks deal multiple types of damage. Giving resistance to nonmagical B/P/S will see lots of play, be very likely applied with little table variation, and is easier book keeping. It is maybe a little on the strong side, but generally providing PC powers that make them more resilient is better than making them deal more damage.

Goodberry has a healing component that feels like the bigger deal there. This is just "you can always conjure a pie, and if you choose to eat it, it is real food." And, yes, in real life, clown pies are just whipped cream in a pie shell (if that, they may be shaving cream in a pie tin, but in a lot of literature, you often find instances where it's a real pie. And I don't see much reason why magic clowns can't conjure apple or cherry pies.

There's so many ways to heal, but explicit means to provide a days 'nourishment' is much more limited. Not that this happens at your table or my table, but you can find plenty of youtube videos telling people to ban goodberry because it destroys 'survival' games. I would just recommend not even wading into the debate, and again as cantrip it could very much trivialize feeding very large groups of people... if your clown was going to work in a food line for the day, their bonus action pie could feed 10*60*8 people, this is better then a third level cleric spell.

A few people have mentioned this. Is it really that much extra work to write down or just remember "I did 6 damage last turn?" I'm genuinely asking. If I'm GMing, sure, I'm not going to remember the amount of damage done by a specific attack, but I'd also just set a die aside showing how much damage was dealt. But I recognize I am not the norm. When I'm playing, I can generally remember how much my last attack did. But, again, I'm not the norm. Maybe the next turn damage could just be, like, your charisma mod?

This isn't too bad when you're just casting 1 blast, but at level 5 you might have 2 blasts, or maybe you dipped into sorcerer for metamagic points and quicken spell spamming, and some rounds you are casting 4 blasts, maybe near the end of the campaign you are casting 6 blasts a round. It becomes a significant issue. And again, the book keeping is just a secondary reason, primarily this is just way too powerful. Warlocks already have a problem with being eldritch blasts spammers, and adding 50% damage boost will make this problem even larger. Eldritch blast is widely acknowledged as the best cantrip spell in the game, and warlocks, because they can add +CHA to each blast in damage, the premier users of the blast. Giving them a subclass that grants a 50% DOT (at level 1!) is a straight up no. If WotC published this every warlock optimization guide would rate this as necessary and many table games would feature pies full of force-thermite being slung back and forth to the horror and groans from most players and DMs.

I liked how you allowed common warlock tools to be applied to vicious mockery, to encourage warlocks from spamming something besides eldritch blast, but this 50% DOT undoes all your work. How about something to further encourage vicious mockery? Like... they can use vicious mockery as a reaction whenever they are injured?

[The patron is called a jester, but also, that is not, necessarily, meant to imply the figure is a formal jester in a court. Just as "pied" is not meant to imply the patron has been hit with a pie. "Pied Jester" is more meant in a "Person who jests and wears multicolored clothes" sense.

Now, clowns and jesters fulfil essentially the same social role, but they do have their distinctions. However, that said, I would not oppose someone who wanted to say they analogous enough to make them near synonyms. They sort of are, just in different societal structures.

But all that aside, circus tents and clowns occupy the same conceptual realm. And occasionally, clowns will serve as ringmasters (tho, apparently, they are specifically referred to as MCs in such case). But, yeah. clown-locks can conjure small magical circus tents.

shrug. Tiny Hut is not a very fun spell. It can be a very useful spell, and most parties end up getting access to it one way or another, I don't know if you need to provide yet another means to access the spell. Clowning around suggests having fun and causing trouble, so I still think stinking cloud is a better choice.

[Omegonthesane]

more damage.

Goodberry has a healing component that feels like the bigger deal there. This is just "you can always conjure a pie, and if you choose to eat it, it is real food." And, yes, in real life, clown pies are just whipped cream in a pie shell (if that, they may be shaving cream in a pie tin, but in a lot of literature, you often find instances where it's a real pie. And I don't see much reason why magic clowns can't conjure apple or cherry pies.

There's so many ways to heal, but explicit means to provide a days 'nourishment' is much more limited. Not that this happens at your table or my table, but you can find plenty of youtube videos telling people to ban goodberry because it destroys 'survival' games. I would just recommend not even wading into the debate, and again as cantrip it could very much trivialize feeding very large groups of people... if your clown was going to work in a food line for the day, their bonus action pie could feed 10*60*8 people, this is better then a third level cleric spell.

Plenty of youtube videos of [SKELETON WARRIORS]*.

People shouldn't be running survival games in D&D. Period. End of statement. They should use a different setting if they want people to give a fuck about the logistics of a 5 player band making their way from A to B. Being able to provide "nourishment" should be something done with contemptuous ease by a D&D party, not a struggle worth spending a spell slot on.

At most, I'd add a flavour text line that cream pies are not a balanced diet and so you will eventually suffer debuffs if you try to live on cream pies uwu instead of supplementing them with more conventional food. Which would then cause the Cream Pie Kitchen to have legitimate downsides if you were running a game where you had to manage the logistics of cities and grand armies and couldn't just say "I cast Goodberry lol" to remove the hunger track due to reaching the limit on how many hot single druids are in your area.

[The patron is called a jester, but also, that is not, necessarily, meant to imply the figure is a formal jester in a court. Just as "pied" is not meant to imply the patron has been hit with a pie. "Pied Jester" is more meant in a "Person who jests and wears multicolored clothes" sense.

Now, clowns and jesters fulfil essentially the same social role, but they do have their distinctions. However, that said, I would not oppose someone who wanted to say they analogous enough to make them near synonyms. They sort of are, just in different societal structures.

But all that aside, circus tents and clowns occupy the same conceptual realm. And occasionally, clowns will serve as ringmasters (tho, apparently, they are specifically referred to as MCs in such case). But, yeah. clown-locks can conjure small magical circus tents.

shrug. Tiny Hut is not a very fun spell. It can be a very useful spell, and most parties end up getting access to it one way or another, I don't know if you need to provide yet another means to access the spell. Clowning around suggests having fun and causing trouble, so I still think stinking cloud is a better choice.

Being able to travel is an essential part of clowns, specifically. The fact that it also tells a potential "survival game" challenge to fuck off is a bonus.

* that was a manual JSS reference, I don't think the word filter does that currently

[JonSetanta]

I chuckled at "Cream Pie Kitchen"

[merxa]

People shouldn't be running survival games in D&D. Period. End of statement. They should use a different setting if they want people to give a fuck about the logistics of a 5 player band making their way from A to B. Being able to provide "nourishment" should be something done with contemptuous ease by a D&D party, not a struggle worth spending a spell slot on.

At most, I'd add a flavour text line that cream pies are not a balanced diet and so you will eventually suffer debuffs if you try to live on cream pies uwu instead of supplementing them with more conventional food. Which would then cause the Cream Pie Kitchen to have legitimate downsides if you were running a game where you had to manage the logistics of cities and grand armies and couldn't just say "I cast Goodberry lol" to remove the hunger track due to reaching the limit on how many hot single druids are in your area.

Goodberry is a level 1 spell that provides nourishment for 10 people. Create food and water is a level 3 spell that provides nourishment for 15 people. The cantrip in question is a cantrip, can be cast at will, and could presumably feed 4800 people a day.

Generally when you're engaging in design, you engage with the system you are designing for, which in this case is 5e. This is how 5e works, a 3rd level clerical spell provides nourishment for 15 people. Or a Druid/Ranger only spell can provide for 10 people.

I agree that 5e isn't built for running 'survival' games, but that doesn't mean creating cantrips that obsolete 3rd levels spells is a good idea.

Being able to travel is an essential part of clowns, specifically. The fact that it also tells a potential "survival game" challenge to fuck off is a bonus.

So you agree that a reskinned phantom steed spell would be a better fit for a traveling clown? Because traveling and resting are two different things, as far as I know you can't travel inside a tiny hut.

[Omegonthesane]

People shouldn't be running survival games in D&D. Period. End of statement. They should use a different setting if they want people to give a fuck about the logistics of a 5 player band making their way from A to B. Being able to provide "nourishment" should be something done with contemptuous ease by a D&D party, not a struggle worth spending a spell slot on.

At most, I'd add a flavour text line that cream pies are not a balanced diet and so you will eventually suffer debuffs if you try to live on cream pies uwu instead of supplementing them with more conventional food. Which would then cause the Cream Pie Kitchen to have legitimate downsides if you were running a game where you had to manage the logistics of cities and grand armies and couldn't just say "I cast Goodberry lol" to remove the hunger track due to reaching the limit on how many hot single druids are in your area.

Goodberry is a level 1 spell that provides nourishment for 10 people. Create food and water is a level 3 spell that provides nourishment for 15 people. The cantrip in question is a cantrip, can be cast at will, and could presumably feed 4800 people a day.

Generally when you're engaging in design, you engage with the system you are designing for, which in this case is 5e. This is how 5e works, a 3rd level clerical spell provides nourishment for 15 people. Or a Druid/Ranger only spell can provide for 10 people.

I agree that 5e isn't built for running 'survival' games, but that doesn't mean creating cantrips that obsolete 3rd levels spells is a good idea.

Create Food and Water should be a cantrip. The existence of an economy obsoletes it. The labour of 0th level peasants obsoletes it.

This would be like comparing attack spells to Magic Missile in 3e to determine if they're underpowered. Fundamentally by pretending the spell system is the only thing that other spells have to compete with, you are refusing to engage with the system of 5e.

Being able to travel is an essential part of clowns, specifically. The fact that it also tells a potential "survival game" challenge to fuck off is a bonus.

So you agree that a reskinned phantom steed spell would be a better fit for a traveling clown? Because traveling and resting are two different things, as far as I know you can't travel inside a tiny hut.

Not in the least. Circus tents - temporary shelter - are an essential part of travelling clowns. Steeds are not.

[merxa]

Create Food and Water should be a cantrip. The existence of an economy obsoletes it. The labour of 0th level peasants obsoletes it.

This would be like comparing attack spells to Magic Missile in 3e to determine if they're underpowered. Fundamentally by pretending the spell system is the only thing that other spells have to compete with, you are refusing to engage with the system of 5e.

If this were 3.x / PF, etc, sure, that sounds right; but this class is for 5e, and 5e has different rules. This is just a really basic point -- you design for the system you are designing for; I don't understand how you think this is wrong or controversial. Sure maybe Create food and water should have been a cantrip, but it isn't, very explicitly it is not a cantrip. Take it up with WotC, go back to playing 3.x, take a look at A5E, present your own heavily modified 5e to discuss -- that is all perfectly fine, but telling someone to ignore the system they are explicitly targeting is ... bizarre? I don't have many nice things to say about your view.

Your last claim, that I am somehow the one not engaging with the system because I know what spells do what at what level is... again, is this some elaborate trolling on your part? I guess I question your system mastery of 5e, which I think is required to some extent if you want to comment on creating subclasses for the game, right? Like you need to know how the system works if you are going to make designs for it? Anyway, you do you Omegonthesane (is the 'thesane' part an ironic joke?)

Not in the least. Circus tents - temporary shelter - are an essential part of travelling clowns. Steeds are not.

I guess this strikes at one of the issues I have with the subclass as presented -- the theme isn't very clear to me. Are you playing a clown as it was known on tv in the 1950s? Is this targeting the late 1800s Barnum and Bailey Circus clowns? Is this meant to have a more 'medieval' theme of court jesters and traveling troubadours?

I am somewhat assuming the later really, as that is what the default setting assumes, technology was considerably different when the 'traveling circus' was a phenomenon, before that it would be an individual, or a small group of actors who likely traveled via cart and horse and setup impromptu stages, or played for the local elites, traveling to seasonal festivals etc. I assume such people slept in their cart, or if they were lucky or had a good show, at the local lords estate or the local inn, farmers barn, perhaps backstage if there was a permanent stage in town. But, as far as I know, the experience of these big top circuses coming into town is a relatively modern phenomenon.

I am not sure if you are aware, but horses were the primary source for land transport in Europe for a long, long time. So, 'Steeds', are actually the essential part of any traveling, unless Prak is designing this for a 5e modern game, but that wasn't mentioned, so I am assuming that is not the case.

[Prak]

Create Food and Water should be a cantrip. The existence of an economy obsoletes it. The labour of 0th level peasants obsoletes it.

This would be like comparing attack spells to Magic Missile in 3e to determine if they're underpowered. Fundamentally by pretending the spell system is the only thing that other spells have to compete with, you are refusing to engage with the system of 5e.

If this were 3.x / PF, etc, sure, that sounds right; but this class is for 5e, and 5e has different rules. This is just a really basic point -- you design for the system you are designing for; I don't understand how you think this is wrong or controversial. Sure maybe Create food and water should have been a cantrip, but it isn't, very explicitly it is not a cantrip. Take it up with WotC, go back to playing 3.x, take a look at A5E, present your own heavily modified 5e to discuss -- that is all perfectly fine, but telling someone to ignore the system they are explicitly targeting is ... bizarre? I don't have many nice things to say about your view.

Your last claim, that I am somehow the one not engaging with the system because I know what spells do what at what level is... again, is this some elaborate trolling on your part? I guess I question your system mastery of 5e, which I think is required to some extent if you want to comment on creating subclasses for the game, right? Like you need to know how the system works if you are going to make designs for it? Anyway, you do you Omegonthesane (is the 'thesane' part an ironic joke?)

Ok. I'll engage with the argument. Sure, a Pied Jester Warlock can conjure one pie a round, all day. Going by the system, this means sitting somewhere, conjuring a pie and letting someone take it, each round, for, at most, sixteen hours. So, ten rounds in a minute, 10*60*16, gives 9600 pies, or (as I intend, which may not be what came out), sufficient nutrition for a day for 3200 people.

Alternatively, a fifth level cleric can cast Create Food and Water twice a day to feed 30 people.

...or a druid can sit around using Druidcraft to make edible flowers blossom all day. I won't pretend that this produces food for 3200 people, but it certainly produces more than enough dandelions to turn into salad for 30 people.

Or a wizard finds an area with lots of sparrows, and sets up a meat grinder, and mage hands sparrows into the meat grinder each round. Or two wizards go to the ocean, one casts dancing lights all day, and the other mage hands fish that are attracted to the light out of the water.

If you really want to use a cantrip to feed a bunch of people because you care about avoiding exhaustion due to lack of food, Conjure Pies and Seltzer is not the only way to do that.

Not in the least. Circus tents - temporary shelter - are an essential part of travelling clowns. Steeds are not.

I guess this strikes at one of the issues I have with the subclass as presented -- the theme isn't very clear to me. Are you playing a clown as it was known on tv in the 1950s? Is this targeting the late 1800s Barnum and Bailey Circus clowns? Is this meant to have a more 'medieval' theme of court jesters and traveling troubadours?

I am somewhat assuming the later really, as that is what the default setting assumes, technology was considerably different when the 'traveling circus' was a phenomenon, before that it would be an individual, or a small group of actors who likely traveled via cart and horse and setup impromptu stages, or played for the local elites, traveling to seasonal festivals etc. I assume such people slept in their cart, or if they were lucky or had a good show, at the local lords estate or the local inn, farmers barn, perhaps backstage if there was a permanent stage in town. But, as far as I know, the experience of these big top circuses coming into town is a relatively modern phenomenon.

I am not sure if you are aware, but horses were the primary source for land transport in Europe for a long, long time. So, 'Steeds', are actually the essential part of any traveling, unless Prak is designing this for a 5e modern game, but that wasn't mentioned, so I am assuming that is not the case.

Ah, I see the issue. You think I'm trying to replicate period appropriate clowns.

...........no.

For one thing, "period appropriate" is.... not possible. D&D does not resemble any particular period of history. You've got a medieval aesthetic next to crumbling tombs that represent the modern ruins of ancient cultures, all in a social dynamic that most closely resembles the Iron Age but with a bunch of modern cultural sensibilities thrown in and a bunch of Iron Age sensibilities excised.

A period appropriate circus in D&D would be modern circus performers in renaissance/colonial age carts traveling between medieval looking towns with the ease of moving between modern states, with acts that blend medieval and iron age language with modern sensibilities and the occasional Punch and Judy show. Hell, The Honeymooners would bear more resemblance to a medieval circus act than would any act you'd see in a D&D game (or any D&D game I'm interested in playing...).

So, what am I trying to replicate? Well, I'm not. I'm not replicating anything beyond the concept of the clown.

The Pied Jester patron is, if anything, a clown digimon:

(note, yes, it seems the digimon is named Piemon in Japan, probably because a hard "d" sound before an "m", with no vowel is just... not going to happen in Japanese. In English, the character is named Piedmon.)

The warlocks of this patron? I mean if I have to point to existing things as what they are, rather than the basic concept of the clown, I'd say...

I mean, look at what this is. It is a warlock subclass for a clown-themed otherworldly patron. It's not about being a medieval clown. It's not about being a modern clown. It's about being a magic using adventurer fueled by an otherworldly, somewhat monstrous, entity, with a clown aesthetic.

Hence, you can conjure pies, because clowns throw pies. You can resist damage, because clowns are slapstick comedians. You can turn a killing blow into falling prone and taking less damage, while also deflecting some of the damage at the attacker, because the pratfall is a slapstick technique for falling safely. You can turn being prone into an advantageous situation because performatively fumbling and flailing is part of slapstick.

If I were trying to replicate actual clowns, I'd write a bard or rogue subclass. This is not about being an actual clown, this is about being a clown-themed warlock.

[merxa]

So you managed to not actually elaborate on what clown aesthetic you are trying to thematically recreate with this subclass.

There isn't some platonic concept of the 'clown' qua clown, as should be clear from this thread -- many people have many ideas of what a 'clown' might entail.

And going back to your nourishing cream pie ... I'm personally dubious whether druidcraft could create edible flowers -- actually nothing in the spell tells me it can do that, so the answer is no, it cannot do it per the spell. I'm sure a generous GM who doesn't care could handwave and say yes, but that's just the typical table variation.

But even if we assume it can do what it cannot do, why would this clown subclass become the premier magical means of feeding larges groups of people? Is that some core thematic concept for your clown? What clown in history or fiction had that as their core identity? Does being the preeminent subclass to feed large groups of people as well as being the new optimized class dip for best eldritch blast damage support your concept of a 'warlock clown'? Those mechanical benefits inform your theme? If someone showed up with this as written at my table I'd assume they are a powergamer and likely to be disruptive -- "I'm a clown, HAHA, I bonus action cream pie them HAHA, and then action blast them with my corrosive eldritch force creampie, HAHA watch their face melt off! I took the best cantrip in the game and added a 50% DOT to it! HAHAHA CLOWNS ARE AWESOME"

At least rename the subclass - you can explain who the patron is, but the name should go the concept you are trying to convey as the PC. IE Hexblade (whose patron is the shadowy Raven Queen), or Celestial or Archfey, those naming conventions are more clear. Calling it 'Jester' and then saying you're not actually a jester, but my version of a scary warlock clown is confusing.

And if you're just defending your design decisions because they are too special to change, that's fine I guess, I'll show myself out of the thread.

[deaddmwalking]

It ate my post. Which sucks because it was relatively long. So short version: Merxa is right. You design for the system you're playing and all of his observations are valid. The thread reads like a meta-plan to drive ovservers insane. It is the metaphorical crazy clown standing on a street corner.

[Prak]

So you managed to not actually elaborate on what clown aesthetic you are trying to thematically recreate with this subclass.

Yes I did, the overall concept of the clown, in popular imagination. And more specifically, a warlock with that concept as a theme.

There isn't some platonic concept of the 'clown' qua clown, as should be clear from this thread -- many people have many ideas of what a 'clown' might entail.

You're right, but there is an overall concept of clowns, and this pulls inspiration from that popular conception in the same way that pop culture generally pulls inspiration from the concept of a clown, without worrying about a specific era's clowns.

And going back to your nourishing cream pie ... I'm personally dubious whether druidcraft could create edible flowers -- actually nothing in the spell tells me it can do that, so the answer is no, it cannot do it per the spell. I'm sure a generous GM who doesn't care could handwave and say yes, but that's just the typical table variation.

You instantly make a flower blossom, a seed pod open, or a leaf bud bloom.

Dandelions are edible.

But even if we assume it can do what it cannot do, why would this clown subclass become the premier magical means of feeding larges groups of people?

I don't know, why would it? You're the one that brought it up. I created the spell because CF&W is third level and way overkill for "I can summon a pie." And I clarified that the pies are real pies and basically handwaved nutrition because an entire pie probably has as many calories as a typical ration, if not more. If D&D tracked individual nutrients, I might go into more detail there, but it doesn't, and who the hell cares? Yes, hypothetically, a Pied Jester Warlock can feed a village forever if that village is cool with all their food being various kinds of pie. I don't care, and no one else I've shown this to cares. You are the sole person I've shown this to who is getting hung up on this hypothetical clown kitchen.

Is that some core thematic concept for your clown? What clown in history or fiction had that as their core identity?

No, but neither does this subclass. This spell that you are so hung up on is just hammerspace pies. The ability to produce a minigun from thin air is not a part of the core identity of the FPS player character, but virtually every derivative depiction of them in other media will include that ability, because while not a part of their core identity, it is a very common trope, and funny. Bottomless magazines are not a core element of John Woo films, but they're very common in them, to the point where completely separate works will lampshade bottomless magazines by calling them "John Woo Specials."

The spell allows you to always have a real pie to throw at someone, and to the extent that there is a specific reason for it, it is so that clown-themed warlocks can staggering smite people with pies, which they cannot do with pie-shaped eldritch blasts (so far as I'm aware, I don't have the exhaustive encyclopedic knowledge of 5e that I do 3.x).

Does being the preeminent subclass to feed large groups of people as well as being the new optimized class dip for best eldritch blast damage support your concept of a 'warlock clown'?

The warlock is already the preeminent dip class to optimize Eldritch Blast, simply through the invocation Agonizing Blast. Literally all AoP&J brings to that is a small amount of seondary damage. And literally the only issue that anyone else has raised is one of bookkeeping.

Those mechanical benefits inform your theme? If someone showed up with this as written at my table I'd assume they are a powergamer and likely to be disruptive -- "I'm a clown, HAHA, I bonus action cream pie them HAHA, and then action blast them with my corrosive eldritch force creampie, HAHA watch their face melt off! I took the best cantrip in the game and added a 50% DOT to it! HAHAHA CLOWNS ARE AWESOME"

1- Powergaming is not bad. You mean to use the term munchkin, and that is not an indictment of this class, because munchkins are cheaters who will break the game with anything. Because that's what they do. They disrupt games with whatever thing they can manage.
2- You fundamentally do not understand what Conjure Pies and Seltzer does. Yes, you conjure a pie as a bonus action. Then you can make a separate attack action to throw that pie at someone. Without doing some cross classing shenanigans that honestly result in what I'm sure is a subpar character, you cannot Conjure, throw, eldritch blast in a single turn.
3- You fundamentally do not understand what Art of Pies and Japes does. It is not, except in the very strictest of terms, a DOT effect. The clinging force of the pie-shaped eldritch blast does 50% damage on the target's next turn. That is all. Also, EB is a force effect, not acid. AoP&J in no way makes the eldritch blast corrosive. However, in having to explain this to you, it occurs to me that it is somewhat thematically dissonant for the clinging spectral pie filling to deal damage, and it should actually impose disadvantage or perhaps give attackers of that target advantage until the target's next turn. Which nicely handles the damage tracking issue.
4- Your issue with powergamersmunchkins is just that, your issue. You know what a really good way to address this purely hypothetical situation is? Not allow such a player to use this subclass. Or, better, not allow such an asshole at your table. It's really easy. I can bar assholes from my table all fucking day. It's a cantrip called "Exercising Judgement in Formation of My Friendgroup."

At least rename the subclass - you can explain who the patron is, but the name should go the concept you are trying to convey as the PC. IE Hexblade (whose patron is the shadowy Raven Queen), or Celestial or Archfey, those naming conventions are more clear. Calling it 'Jester' and then saying you're not actually a jester, but my version of a scary warlock clown is confusing.

My inclination is to simply respond "why?" But... You raise something of a point. Some idiots might see "pied jester" and think that this subclass is meant to turn warlocks into jesters. Or coat them with pie. I'm not actually sure how to deal with such idiots, beyond a bit of fluff about the patron, which will be included when I turn this into a full pdf after I've gotten the mechanics shaken out. However, your examples display two very different categories. Hexblade describes the warlocks who take that subclass, and not the patron. Archfae, Celestial, Great Old One, Fiend, Undead, Fathomless and Genie describe the patrons. The fact that Hexblade is the name of a warlock subclass at all is an artifact of Hexblade being a distinct class in 3.5, and them wanting to be clear that the subclass was the 5e version of that class. In truth, that subclass should be named Raven Queen, because it is an option for the Otherworldly Patron feature, and that is the patron. Therefore, if they name an Otherworldly Patron option Hexblade, it should mean that the patron is an entity known as the Hexblade. Which actually I think is superior to the idea of naming it Raven Queen, because the Raven Queen is a specific entity created for 5e, and no one knows who or what the fuck she is, and in so far as she is described at all, it is with counter intuitive shit like she doesn't like undead. But either way, there is no thematic connection between the entity The Raven Queen, and her warlocks getting curse sword powers.

And if you're just defending your design decisions because they are too special to change, that's fine I guess, I'll show myself out of the thread.

I wouldn't say they're too special to change. I would however say that the flavor decisions I've made will remain made until someone can demonstrate a mechanical reason to change them. If you want to illustrate a mechanical reason why clown-themed warlocks shouldn't get Leomund's Tiny Hut, then I will entertain it. But if your opposition to it is because it doesn't fit your version of clowns, well...

[JonSetanta]

No. Prak's design is fine for 5e.

I'm not even debating thematics because in Earth reality we have the "It" franchise, an Eldritch Horror Clown.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Ok. I'll engage with the argument. Sure, a Pied Jester Warlock can conjure one pie a round, all day. Going by the system, this means sitting somewhere, conjuring a pie and letting someone take it, each round, for, at most, sixteen hours. So, ten rounds in a minute, 10*60*16, gives 9600 pies, or (as I intend, which may not be what came out), sufficient nutrition for a day for 3200 people.

Alternatively, a fifth level cleric can cast Create Food and Water twice a day to feed 30 people.

...or a druid can sit around using Druidcraft to make edible flowers blossom all day. I won't pretend that this produces food for 3200 people, but it certainly produces more than enough dandelions to turn into salad for 30 people.

Or a wizard finds an area with lots of sparrows, and sets up a meat grinder, and mage hands sparrows into the meat grinder each round. Or two wizards go to the ocean, one casts dancing lights all day, and the other mage hands fish that are attracted to the light out of the water.

If you really want to use a cantrip to feed a bunch of people because you care about avoiding exhaustion due to lack of food, Conjure Pies and Seltzer is not the only way to do that.

You know your examples aren't remotely comparable, right? Having your magic Kefka class completely invalidate an entire village's need for food with an hour of cream pies is silly. Almost as silly as all the cream pie jokes in this thread.
Seriously though, for all the 'crazy magic clown' inspiration, I'm not seeing any WH40K Harlequin DNA in here. You're not even gonna give them Blur or special abilities to cause enemies to rage and target the clown to turn it into a creamy smear? I guess this is still supposed to be a warlock instead of a front-line fighter. Oh, well.

[merxa]

Yes I did, the overall concept of the clown, in popular imagination. And more specifically, a warlock with that concept as a theme.
[...]
You're right, but there is an overall concept of clowns, and this pulls inspiration from that popular conception in the same way that pop culture generally pulls inspiration from the concept of a clown, without worrying about a specific era's clowns.

Insisting you are correct isn't really an argument. Based off the numerous confusions, there clearly is no 'overall' concept of the clown present here. Posting some pictures of clowns doesn't make it clearer, especially since I don't recognize them besides IT, which I've never seen. You mostly just described the class features you wrote and insist they are all 'clownish', but didn't actually site any material where clowns did such things. Personally, I think 'clown' is a very large conceptual space, there are many clowns, and if you are going for 'scary / horror' clown you should draw more directly from the primary sources which inspired this sort of clown.

You instantly make a flower blossom, a seed pod open, or a leaf bud bloom.

Dandelions are edible.

'Make a flower blossom' supposes there is a flower bud to blossom, a seed pod to open, a leaf bud to bloom. it does not conjure forth a real flower. If you read the full spell, the first and third bullet point makes that very clear, it can create 'sensory' effects, it does not conjure forth actual objects.

And I clarified that the pies are real pies and basically handwaved nutrition because an entire pie probably has as many calories as a typical ration, if not more.

I thought the pies were made of cream or shaving cream, or they are made with real filling or they are made with...? I guess you have a really clear conception of your clown pie.

The warlock is already the preeminent dip class to optimize Eldritch Blast, simply through the invocation Agonizing Blast. Literally all AoP&J brings to that is a small amount of seondary damage. And literally the only issue that anyone else has raised is one of bookkeeping.

a 50% DOT isn't a small amount, it is a 50% boost. But maybe we've descended into PL levels of word games, perhaps 50% is small by your view.

1- Powergaming is not bad. You mean to use the term munchkin, and that is not an indictment of this class, because munchkins are cheaters who will break the game with anything. Because that's what they do. They disrupt games with whatever thing they can manage.
2- You fundamentally do not understand what Conjure Pies and Seltzer does. Yes, you conjure a pie as a bonus action. Then you can make a separate attack action to throw that pie at someone. Without doing some cross classing shenanigans that honestly result in what I'm sure is a subpar character, you cannot Conjure, throw, eldritch blast in a single turn.
3- You fundamentally do not understand what Art of Pies and Japes does. It is not, except in the very strictest of terms, a DOT effect. The clinging force of the pie-shaped eldritch blast does 50% damage on the target's next turn. That is all. Also, EB is a force effect, not acid. AoP&J in no way makes the eldritch blast corrosive. However, in having to explain this to you, it occurs to me that it is somewhat thematically dissonant for the clinging spectral pie filling to deal damage, and it should actually impose disadvantage or perhaps give attackers of that target advantage until the target's next turn. Which nicely handles the damage tracking issue.
4- Your issue with powergamersmunchkins is just that, your issue. You know what a really good way to address this purely hypothetical situation is? Not allow such a player to use this subclass. Or, better, not allow such an asshole at your table. It's really easy. I can bar assholes from my table all fucking day. It's a cantrip called "Exercising Judgement in Formation of My Friendgroup."

Showing up to the table with a homebrew class that takes the best cantrip and adds 50% more damage to it is in poor taste. You're welcome to make assumptions about my views on 'powergaming' and 'munchkins' but they aren't well informed by anything or particularly true. And you're right, I did miss the 'separate' attack action to throw the pie.

Your new fix isn't really a fix:

This clinging residue obscures their vision and dampens their pride, and until their next turn, where they can automatically wipe it off, they have disadvantage on perception checks, and attacks against them are made at advantage.

Advantage as a freerider is likely worse than the original 50% DOT, especially for eldritch blast because after the first ray hits, your second ray will have advantage. and that advantage lasts until their next turn, which will grant several allies advantage. Are you familiar with the optimization guides? Elven Accuracy is rated very highly for feat selection, the problem with it is that getting a consistent source of advantage can be difficult, but if you bake it right into the spell then there's no problem is there? You went from one mistake to possibly a worse mistake.

My inclination is to simply respond "why?" But... You raise something of a point. Some idiots might see "pied jester" and think that this subclass is meant to turn warlocks into jesters. Or coat them with pie. I'm not actually sure how to deal with such idiots, beyond a bit of fluff about the patron, which will be included when I turn this into a full pdf after I've gotten the mechanics shaken out. However, your examples display two very different categories. Hexblade describes the warlocks who take that subclass, and not the patron. Archfae, Celestial, Great Old One, Fiend, Undead, Fathomless and Genie describe the patrons. The fact that Hexblade is the name of a warlock subclass at all is an artifact of Hexblade being a distinct class in 3.5, and them wanting to be clear that the subclass was the 5e version of that class. In truth, that subclass should be named Raven Queen, because it is an option for the Otherworldly Patron feature, and that is the patron. Therefore, if they name an Otherworldly Patron option Hexblade, it should mean that the patron is an entity known as the Hexblade. Which actually I think is superior to the idea of naming it Raven Queen, because the Raven Queen is a specific entity created for 5e, and no one knows who or what the fuck she is, and in so far as she is described at all, it is with counter intuitive shit like she doesn't like undead. But either way, there is no thematic connection between the entity The Raven Queen, and her warlocks getting curse sword powers.

Gosh, who are these idiots you are referring to, surely not me is it? I guess I assume Undead will turn you into undead or give you undead powers... which it does, and Celestial will make you more celestial... and hexblade gives you some sort of cursed blade, and Fiend makes you more fiendish... gosh I must be an incredible idiot to think 'Pied Jester' will make you like a... Jester? How utterly stupid indeed.

I wouldn't say they're too special to change. I would however say that the flavor decisions I've made will remain made until someone can demonstrate a mechanical reason to change them. If you want to illustrate a mechanical reason why clown-themed warlocks shouldn't get Leomund's Tiny Hut, then I will entertain it. But if your opposition to it is because it doesn't fit your version of clowns, well...

I've presented several mechanical reasons, but if you insist on not understanding them or claiming they don't exist or aren't actually mechanical reasons... well I can't actually help you then can I?

[Prak]

Yes I did, the overall concept of the clown, in popular imagination. And more specifically, a warlock with that concept as a theme.
[...]
You're right, but there is an overall concept of clowns, and this pulls inspiration from that popular conception in the same way that pop culture generally pulls inspiration from the concept of a clown, without worrying about a specific era's clowns.

Insisting you are correct isn't really an argument. Based off the numerous confusions, there clearly is no 'overall' concept of the clown present here. Posting some pictures of clowns doesn't make it clearer, especially since I don't recognize them besides IT, which I've never seen. You mostly just described the class features you wrote and insist they are all 'clownish', but didn't actually site any material where clowns did such things. Personally, I think 'clown' is a very large conceptual space, there are many clowns, and if you are going for 'scary / horror' clown you should draw more directly from the primary sources which inspired this sort of clown.

A clown is a person who wears a unique makeup-face and flamboyant costume, performing comedy in a state of open-mindedness (by reversing folkway-norms) all while using physical comedy.

Physical comedy is a form of comedy focused on manipulation of the body for a humorous effect. It can include slapstick, clowning, mime, physical stunts, or making funny faces.[1]

Physical comedy originated as part of the Commedia dell'arte.[2] It is now sometimes incorporated into sitcoms; for example, in the sitcom Three's Company, actor John Ritter frequently performed pratfalls (landing on the buttocks). Cartoons, particularly film shorts, also commonly depict an exaggerated form of physical comedy (incorporating cartoon physics), such as in Tom and Jerry and Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner.[3]

Slapstick elements include the trip, the slip, the double take, the collide, the fall (or faint), and the roar.

(underline emphasis added, bold emphasis not)

Slapstick is a style of humor involving exaggerated physical activity that exceeds the boundaries of normal physical comedy.[1][2] Slapstick may involve both intentional violence and violence by mishap, often resulting from inept use of props such as saws and ladders.[3][4]

As for siting specific material in which clowns perform slapstick, here is a video, the specific time stamp also shows a pratfall. And since we're getting granularly remedial here, here is a video of a clown pieing someone in the face

Again, as to the fact that I'm drawing on "scary" or "horror" clowns, well, I'm not. If you want to get excessively granular, I am drawing on the magic clown trope. I'm actually not familiar with any of the clowns I used images of beyond Piedmon and Pennywise, they are simply fitting of "clowns in magical settings with magic powers." Which, again, because I'm writing a warlock subclass, is what I'm creating here. If I were making a bog standard normal clown, I would write a rogue subclass.

You instantly make a flower blossom, a seed pod open, or a leaf bud bloom.

Dandelions are edible.

'Make a flower blossom' supposes there is a flower bud to blossom, a seed pod to open, a leaf bud to bloom. it does not conjure forth a real flower. If you read the full spell, the first and third bullet point makes that very clear, it can create 'sensory' effects, it does not conjure forth actual objects.

I'm sorry, I'm writing this in North America, where every fucking piece of grass larger than six square inches has dandelions. Sure, I suppose if your game takes place in the fucking tundra, there will be no dandelions that druidcraft can cause to sprout. Maybe it's a good thing your warlock can conjure high calorie pies in that case. You might not starve before the cleric can cast Create Food and Water.

And I clarified that the pies are real pies and basically handwaved nutrition because an entire pie probably has as many calories as a typical ration, if not more.

I thought the pies were made of cream or shaving cream, or they are made with real filling or they are made with...? I guess you have a really clear conception of your clown pie.

Ah, the grand Den tradition of someone whose point has failed intentionally taking previous points in bad faith. But in case you genuinely have poor reading comprehension, I will go over the previous remarks I've made about clown pies-

You create a single pie of the type of your choice in your hand (...) The pie may be eaten, in which case it satisfies hunger as if it were a single ration. If not thrown or eaten, the pie spoils in 24 hours.

Conjure Pie and Seltzer -- I would remove hunger satisfaction. (...) clown pies are just all whip cream and no filling.

yes, in real life, clown pies are just whipped cream in a pie shell (if that, they may be shaving cream in a pie tin), but in a lot of literature, you often find instances where it's a real pie. And I don't see much reason why magic clowns can't conjure apple or cherry pies.

So. Yes. In real life, a clown's pie is usually whipped cream or shaving cream/foam. But, in literature, this is often ignored (or not known) by the writer, and clowns use real pies. Again, with citation, because apparently I'm now writing a fucking essay on clowns-

Rogue gets hit in the face with a boysenberry pie



Prodigal clown Mavolio Bent throws a pineapple custard pie at Vetinari, but it is intercepted by Moist Von Lipwig

The warlock is already the preeminent dip class to optimize Eldritch Blast, simply through the invocation Agonizing Blast. Literally all AoP&J brings to that is a small amount of seondary damage. And literally the only issue that anyone else has raised is one of bookkeeping.

a 50% DOT isn't a small amount, it is a 50% boost. But maybe we've descended into PL levels of word games, perhaps 50% is small by your view.

No, you're right. 50% is not a small percentage.

But 50% of the damage of a spell that does 1d10, and maybe +5 at the high end if you have Agonizing Blast, eg, somewhere between 3 and 7 points of damage, is a small amount.

You're welcome to make assumptions about my views on 'powergaming' and 'munchkins' but they aren't well informed by anything or particularly true.

They're informed by the general attitude of many people in the gaming community that powergamers and munchkins are the same thing, and in particular your use of the term powergamer in a derogatory fashion. So, I would say I'm pretty accurate here.

Your new fix isn't really a fix:

This clinging residue obscures their vision and dampens their pride, and until their next turn, where they can automatically wipe it off, they have disadvantage on perception checks, and attacks against them are made at advantage.

Advantage as a freerider is likely worse than the original 50% DOT, especially for eldritch blast because after the first ray hits, your second ray will have advantage. and that advantage lasts until their next turn, which will grant several allies advantage. Are you familiar with the optimization guides? Elven Accuracy is rated very highly for feat selection, the problem with it is that getting a consistent source of advantage can be difficult, but if you bake it right into the spell then there's no problem is there? You went from one mistake to possibly a worse mistake.

It's a fix to the one thing people whose input I'm interested in have raised as a problem with the previous way the ability worked, damage tracking. Also, Faerie Fire gives attackers advantage on attacks against the targets for up to a minute. As opposed to until the target's next turn here. Yes, yes, cantrips are at will. True Strike gives you advantage on your next attack, and a sorcerer can quicken it. I don't feel this is particularly broken. Sure, the warlock and rogue can team up so that the rogue can always sneak attack their chosen target. Or the rogue could just team up with the barbarian to just stand on the other side of the target.

Look, I know that 5e's philosophy is "everything should be tiny bullshit that no one in a real game would ever give a fuck about," but... well, the warlock already tells that philosophy to fuck off.

Gosh, who are these idiots you are referring to, surely not me is it? I guess I assume Undead will turn you into undead or give you undead powers... which it does, and Celestial will make you more celestial... and hexblade gives you some sort of cursed blade, and Fiend makes you more fiendish... gosh I must be an incredible idiot to think 'Pied Jester' will make you like a... Jester? How utterly stupid indeed.

Well, then your assumptions would, at best, be circumstantially correct. Undead means you get your power from an undead. Celestial means you get your power from a celestial. Hexblade is, again, an outlier adn should not be counted/

I've presented several mechanical reasons, but if you insist on not understanding them or claiming they don't exist or aren't actually mechanical reasons... well I can't actually help you then can I?

Well, on the specific topic of LTH, no, you've questioned it on the basis of flavor, and the closest you've come to a mechanical argument against it is that it's not very fun. I would counter that with "Going into your tiny hut, casting mirror image and mislead, and then exiting with your four duplicates while you're invisible" sounds like a hell of a lot of fun.

But as to the rest... you pointed out a mechanical problem with Art of Pies and Japes, which others had raised. You helped me understand that issue, even if I did not specifically respond to it (you make a good point, when you're shooting off more than one blast, it is more to track, and as I'm addressing this now, it's also a strong point against the half again damage element, and if I kept the damage part, I would need to limit that so that only the first EB on your turn does additional damage on the target's next turn, in addition to changing it to a set or deterministic amount of damage, rather than being relative to the amount you originally dealt). And, as I was explaining a misconception or mischaracterization, you, indirectly, led me to realize that the effect was dissonant with the fluff, so I changed it.

Now. If you want to set aside the matter of "what are you representing specifically? The concept of clowning isn't a thing/is too broad" and stop responding to things in bad faith, or getting a hair up your ass about clown cream pie kitchens which you are literally the only person who cares about, I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of someone who seems to have a more devoted understanding of 5e than most of us here.

But also Cham writes 5e material, and I could just ask him for that perspective. So... you're going to have to accept that this is a very general "clown-themed otherworldly magic user" thing rather than going super granular on a particular variety of clown. I might go on to write some more clown-themed subclasses, which will probably be more specifically faithful to a particular kind of clown. And some might be even more general (like a paladin subclass inspired by the very real Clowns of America International code of ethics for clowning).

On the topic of renaming the patron-
I can, actually, see some reason to not using "Pied Jester." I must admit, your points do influence that, to some extent. But honestly, the name was always a pretty generic one that I had not specifically planned on keeping. I think it's a good generic name, probably because my main touchstone for "magic clown with otherworldly power" is Piedmon, and I like wordplay and it has some of that in the use of Jester, because I don't mean court jester, but "one who jests." ...which is technically, I believe, the origin of the term "court jester." (ok, I just looked it up, and it does, but... not in the way we currently understand either term). But I do begin to wonder if there is a better generic name (because, imo, warlock patron choices should be generic, so that people can fill in their own specific figure). I don't think I want to go with The Ringleader, or something to that effect, because the subclass is not that generally circus themed. It's generally inspired by clowns of all forms, but has nothing to reflect the wide variety of non-clown circus performers, and I don't want to go back and make it do so. But I am considering a different name now.

[Foxwarrior]

No opinion on most of this thread, except: being better at generating food by a factor of a hundred vs someone several levels higher who has it more in theme for them seems deeply wrong, and also this:

I'm actually not familiar with any of the clowns I used images of beyond Piedmon and Pennywise, they are simply fitting of "clowns in magical settings with magic powers."

is a very silly thing to say.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Just call it the Cream Clown. That's the whole point anyone would play this class anyway - to throw murder-pies at people and feed countries.

No opinion on most of this thread, except: being better at generating food by a factor of a hundred vs someone several levels higher who has it more in theme for them seems deeply wrong, and also this:

I'm actually not familiar with any of the clowns I used images of beyond Piedmon and Pennywise, they are simply fitting of "clowns in magical settings with magic powers."

is a very silly thing to say.

Yeah, for a clown-based subclass, I'm not seeing a lot of clowning around going on here. C'mon, man, Prak even posted an anime clown who isn't the anime clown.

How come nobody's mentioned The Joker yet? Clown-based immortality, anyone? You'd bring up some useless lego villain over these guys?

[Prak]

I have no idea who that it is. Are they a Jojo?

The only Jokers I know are from Persona (and I wouldn't be able to recognize them, I just know there's a Persona character named Joker) and the DC Joker, and fuck him. He's barely a clown beyond the facepaint.

edit: oh, it ...well, it will probably make this whole thing even sillier, but might explain things, if I point out- for a very long time, I hated clowns. I wasn't one of those people who are afraid of clowns, no, I hated them. I blame the depression. I hated the incarnation of joy and happiness. Therefore, I don't have a particular well of clown-themed characters to draw on, because while they did pop up in things I watched, because I hated clowns, they didn't, like, stick in my mind.

I'm still not... like, into clowns, I kind of have no particular feelings about them one way or the other. But I am fascinated by the concept you see in some fiction of clowns as a distinct sapient species. And I'm starting to kind of like the idea of "clown themed magical being." So, yeah, my inspiration is a trope, more or less, rather than any particular characters.

[JonSetanta]

Hunter x Hunter sometimes-villain sometimes-ally