D&D 5E Is Warlock broken?

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Page 107, Players Handbook, under Pact of the Chain.

The PHB also stats out the relevant 'special' familiars (imp, quasit, pseudodragon, sprite) at the back of the book but there is no mention of their magic resistance being transferable to the warlock. The only reason they are listed on the PHB is in order for warlocks to check them out.

There are variants of each in the MM that permit them to be familiars where they do transfer their powers.

But in the spell description for Find Familiar it specifically states that a familiar summoned by the spell can take the form of a bat, cat, crab*, frog/toad, hawk, lizard*, octopus (!)*, owl, poisonous snake, fish*, rat, raven, sea horse*, spider* or weasel*but that the familiar is a spirit (fey, celestial, or fiend) in fact, and only assuming those forms (where marked with *, there are no stats on the PHB). It says you can cast a touch spell through them and gain the advantage of any special senses they have but nothing about resistances. That info exists only in the MM.

So on the face of it it appears that as written a warlock's 'special' familiar is not intended to share its resistances, although in the MM they do.

It is a strange one, as the casting of FF does not by RAW permit the summoning of one of these creatures, they are not summoned to be dismissed back to the Dimension Where Spare Socks Live, but rather are made pacts with on their own terms rather than being a Fey/Fiendish/Ineffable Flunkey of a greater power.

So my gut says nope.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

So, how does one get an imp as a familar then? I don't see any rules in the books for how that's possible...is it only the result of a house rule?

Welcome to 5e. Motto is: "house rules are welcome here."

 

[SailorNash]

Welcome to 5e. Motto is: "house rules are welcome here."

Good way to run a game, but bad way to write a class. If something is disliked, house rules can change it. But it should at least be clear to start.

For Warlocks in particular, I think they may have the most issues needing such clarification before starting play? DM rulings of course would vary, leading to wildly different tables. I haven't had the same kind of worries before, say, rolling a Fighter or Cleric or even a Paladin.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think giving PCs Magic Resistance from a familiar is surely OP, I don't recommend it.

Well it is competing with Pact of the Tome which gives the warlock 3 cantrips cherry-picked from all class lists, and the ability to potentially learn all ritual spells from all classes (as of current publication that means adding up to 32 spells of levels 1-6 that can be cast at-will with a bit of time (and occasionally money) by such a warlock).

Also, you can get the same ability with a magic item.

So, how does one get an imp as a familar then? I don't see any rules in the books for how that's possible...is it only the result of a house rule?

MM p69, under the "Variant: Imp Familiar" sidebar are the rules. In addition the "Variant: Familiars" sidebar on p347 strongly implies that the find familiar spell must be involved. "Any spellcaster that can cast the find familiar spell (such as an archmage or a mage) is likely to have a familiar. The familiar can be one of the creatures described in the spell (see the Player's Handbook) or some other Tiny monster, such as a crawling claw, imp, pseudodragon or quasit."

Note that this also provides precedent for a DM to allow other types of special familiars to be bonded via the type of contract that one can make (apparently in concert with the find familiar spell), though such familiars would presumably not grant the special abilities that imps, pseudodragons and quasits are able to grant as described in their sidebars.

Page 107, Players Handbook, under Pact of the Chain.

The PHB also stats out the relevant 'special' familiars (imp, quasit, pseudodragon, sprite) at the back of the book but there is no mention of their magic resistance being transferable to the warlock. The only reason they are listed on the PHB is in order for warlocks to check them out.

There are variants of each in the MM that permit them to be familiars where they do transfer their powers.

But in the spell description for Find Familiar it specifically states that a familiar summoned by the spell can take the form of a bat, cat, crab*, frog/toad, hawk, lizard*, octopus (!)*, owl, poisonous snake, fish*, rat, raven, sea horse*, spider* or weasel*but that the familiar is a spirit (fey, celestial, or fiend) in fact, and only assuming those forms (where marked with *, there are no stats on the PHB). It says you can cast a touch spell through them and gain the advantage of any special senses they have but nothing about resistances. That info exists only in the MM.

So on the face of it it appears that as written a warlock's 'special' familiar is not intended to share its resistances, although in the MM they do.

I would say rather that the PHB doesn't assume such variants are in use. If such a variant is in use, it isn't a big stretch to allow it to apply to those special familiars (there is a reason they are popular!) It also wouldn't be out of line to disallow it on the metaphysical basis that it isn't really an imp. However, by that standard it doesn't make a lot of sense that the fake imp still gets its own special abilities. DM's call either way.

It is a strange one, as the casting of FF does not by RAW permit the summoning of one of these creatures, they are not summoned to be dismissed back to the Dimension Where Spare Socks Live, but rather are made pacts with on their own terms rather than being a Fey/Fiendish/Ineffable Flunkey of a greater power.

However, the variants (and this is all variants, so it extends the material in the PHB if used) relating to familiar specifically mention the find familiar spell. Not on the same page or in the same sidebar, but in my opinion it is significantly more of a stretch to assume those sidebar variants are not intended to function together than to assume that they are, especially since the special familiar sidebars explicitly note that they apply to spellcasters--not just anyone. In other words:

1) Variants in monster entries say spellcaster can bond with ceature + variant in back says spellcaster must be able to cast find familiar => spellcaster makes use of find familiar spell + contract to gain unusual familiar.

2) Special creatures die easily + PHB familiar have insurance against this + special familiar are supposed to be "superior famliars" + Pact of the Blade game concept provides precedent of sending existing entity to Spare Sock Drawer with a power that normally only works on magically created entity => special familiars should have access to the Spare Sock Drawer for death insurance (and probably the other benefits provided by find familiar).

This is of course interpretation--but I think it is the most consistent interpretation that takes into account all of the potentially relevant information in the books.

So my gut says nope.

I'd say that the overall design would imply that the special familiar variant rules could or should also be applied to Pact of the Chain familiars (otherwise they are inferior to special familiars acquired by other casters, and this special ability appears designed to give them the best familiars in the game), should said variants be used in your campaign at all.

I will also guess that Jeremy Crawford will likely say that the PHB does not include that feature from the special familiars (citing they are spirits, etc), and it is up to the DM whether to apply it if that variant is used. Mike Mearls will likely say that the warlock doesn't gain that feature but it doesn't break anything and he would allow it in his game.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Good way to run a game, but bad way to write a class.

Please expound on this. What has lead you to believe the warlocks is badly written because of familiars?

If something is disliked, house rules can change it. But it should at least be clear to start.

What is unclear to you? Because things seem clear enough to me. With both the find familiar spell, and the chain pact class feature.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Page 107, Players Handbook, under Pact of the Chain.

The PHB also stats out the relevant 'special' familiars (imp, quasit, pseudodragon, sprite) at the back of the book but there is no mention of their magic resistance being transferable to the warlock. The only reason they are listed on the PHB is in order for warlocks to check them out.

They're also incorrect. The PHB errata specifically states that any stat block in the PHB is superseded by the MM: "If in doubt, the Monster Manual version of a creature’s stat block is authoritative." So, if anything, pointing to the PHB stat block as different merely points out that you shouldn't use the PHB stat block at all.

There are variants of each in the MM that permit them to be familiars where they do transfer their powers.

But in the spell description for Find Familiar it specifically states that a familiar summoned by the spell can take the form of a bat, cat, crab*, frog/toad, hawk, lizard*, octopus (!)*, owl, poisonous snake, fish*, rat, raven, sea horse*, spider* or weasel*but that the familiar is a spirit (fey, celestial, or fiend) in fact, and only assuming those forms (where marked with *, there are no stats on the PHB). It says you can cast a touch spell through them and gain the advantage of any special senses they have but nothing about resistances. That info exists only in the MM.

So your argument is that -- even though the only way in the game to get a familiar in the game is to cast find familiar, and even though Warlock explicitly states that you're allowed to use find familiar to select the form of an imp, quasit, pseudodragon, or sprite -- you're arguing that you're not actually getting an imp, quasit, pseudodragon, or sprite? You're putting Clintonian levels of nuanced meaning on the word "is" here, because you're requiring "the familiar is an imp" to be an intentionally different meaning as a design choice than "the familiar is a spirit in the form of an imp". Given the looseness of the phrasing in the remainder of 5e, I do not find your argument consistent with the rest of the game's material.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Good way to run a game, but bad way to write a class. If something is disliked, house rules can change it. But it should at least be clear to start.

For Warlocks in particular, I think they may have the most issues needing such clarification before starting play? DM rulings of course would vary, leading to wildly different tables. I haven't had the same kind of worries before, say, rolling a Fighter or Cleric or even a Paladin.

I guess I really don't see it. There is no ambiguity: by the rules, the warlock gets the regular familiar. End of story. It is as set forth as anything in 5e. If the warlock got the variant familiar, the class write up would have said so. The important word in variant familiar is "variant." As I said in a previous post, I am happy to let the variant familiars be available, but it is DM discretion. Play at someone else's table, and you might not get it, or it might cost an invocation (strong bond, perquisite pact of the chain (maybe a level). You share the advantage on saves against spells and magic effects that your familiar has if it has it.) Don't depend on it but be happy if you can get it.

As for the rest, I haven't seen anything that required extra work as a DM for warlock PC's than for any other PC.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The PHB errata specifically states that any stat block in the PHB is superseded by the MM: "If in doubt, the Monster Manual version of a creature’s stat block is authoritative." So, if anything, pointing to the PHB stat block as different merely points out that you shouldn't use the PHB stat block at all.

Other than a formatting difference (the PHB stat blocks for imp and quasit list their speeds for the alternate forms they can take on the Speed line of the stat block, while the Monster Manual stat block shares those details within the description of their Shapeshifter features), there are no differences that I see between the stat blocks in the PHB for quasit, imp, and pseudodragon and the stat blocks in the Monster Manual for the same.

Because the variant familiar side-bar for each of those monsters is exactly that: a side-bar, not a portion of the stat block.

...even though the only way in the game to get a familiar in the game is to cast find familiar...

That is false.

A familiar can also be gotten by meeting a pseudodragon in your adventures and that pseudodragon choosing of its own free will to offer to serve you as a familiar, granting you the benefits listed in the Variant: Pseudodragon Familiar side-bar from the Monster Manual (and not having any of the restrictions or benefits of the find familiar spell), because that is what that side-bar says.

Similarly, the Variant: Quasit Familiar side-bar presents another way to get a familiar that has nothing at all to do with the find familiar spell, and provides the benefits listed in that side-bar.

The Variant: Imp Familiar side-bar is, as the above, another self-contained way to get a familiar.

...and even though Warlock explicitly states that you're allowed to use find familiar to select the form of an imp, quasit, pseudodragon, or sprite...

I won't argue whether the familiar gained by the find familiar spell is an actual imp or just an imp-shaped spirit - that distinction is irrelevant. I will argue that nothing in the find familiar spell, or the warlock feature that alters it to allow these creature options says that you get or can choose to get a variant version of those creatures - and will emphasize that nothing in the variant familiar side-bars even makes reference to gaining a familiar via use of the find familiar spell.

The game presents two clear options: A) cast find familiar and get a familiar that serves as long as you wish it to, or B) a familiar chooses you and can end that service if ever it chooses - and both have distinctly different, while similar, specific benefits and restrictions.

The confusion seems to be that "Variant: Imp Familiar" is not saying "an imp that is different because it is a familiar" such that a non-variant imp would be any imp that isn't a familiar, but rather is saying "an imp that is different because it has freely offered a contract to a mortal spellcaster" such that a non-variant imp would be any imp that hasn't offered such a contract whether it is or isn't someone's familiar.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

They're also incorrect. The PHB errata specifically states that any stat block in the PHB is superseded by the MM: "If in doubt, the Monster Manual version of a creature’s stat block is authoritative." So, if anything, pointing to the PHB stat block as different merely points out that you shouldn't use the PHB stat block at all.



So your argument is that -- even though the only way in the game to get a familiar in the game is to cast find familiar, and even though Warlock explicitly states that you're allowed to use find familiar to select the form of an imp, quasit, pseudodragon, or sprite -- you're arguing that you're not actually getting an imp, quasit, pseudodragon, or sprite? You're putting Clintonian levels of nuanced meaning on the word "is" here, because you're requiring "the familiar is an imp" to be an intentionally different meaning as a design choice than "the familiar is a spirit in the form of an imp". Given the looseness of the phrasing in the remainder of 5e, I do not find your argument consistent with the rest of the game's material.

Hi
So, first, you are coming across as a little incredulous and/or scornful which isn't needed.
Secondly, thank you for the errata catch - that is helpful.
Thirdly, I'm actually the one seeking an answer - I am 'showing my working' based on RAW from the PHB. Would I like to see warlocks get a boost from their familiars like this? Yes. I think so. But I was just setting out the facts as they were presented, not building an argument that I believe it must be so. I don't think my tone indicated that this was in any way a definitive "nope", I certainly didn't intend it to. As I say, working it out as written in the books and hoping for the answer to be "yep" but fearing it may be "nope".
The MM errata is I think a potential clincher.
Still waiting on Jezza for his viewpoint, which will be interesting to see.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

...even though the only way in the game to get a familiar in the game is to cast find familiar...

I can't really agree with this here. Is find familiar the only default player accessible means of gaining a familiar via what is given them in the PHB? Perhaps. But that does not mean it is the only way in play. Because "in play" means infinite possibilities. All games, in my vast years of experience at least, cross beyond what the PHB offers in black-and-white.

Not to mention, the MM familiars are available to NPC spellcasters as well. Maybe they have access to the magic resistance? Nothing in 5e indicates, to me at least, that PCs and NPCs have parity.