D&D 5E Is Warlock broken?

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Reading the MM variants, they feel like NPCs.

They have their own motivations, plans, devious plots and/or tolerance for witnessing murderhoboing*. They feel like they should be run by the DM.

The familiars (of whatever shape) from the FF spell come over as...equipment. Remote control drones entirely under the player's control.

This does feel like a difference.



*admit it, you read that as "murderho boing"

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

Except that the pseudodragon can only make that bond with a spellcaster (it's right there in the sidebar, as well as in the descriptive text). And the variant at the back of the MM that discusses an NPC spellcaster getting a pseudodragon familiar specifies they must be able to cast find familiar.

I suppose one could say that in order for an NPC spellcaster to gain a pseudodragon familiar they need access to a spell that they don't actually have to cast to gain that familiar, but PCs can skip the spell requirement for some odd reason.

Now exactly how find familiar interacts with that bond, whether it gives the pseudodragon access to the features and abilities that a familiar normally has, isn't described anywhere. It's entire up to the DM how (or if) to do it. I explained why I think it makes the most sense to let them have the whole deal, though that's not a statement of what the rules are saying (since they are silent on that issue) just what I think is most consistent with the rest of the rules and which balances better and makes special familiars actually useful beyond the first area effect spell.

My main contention is that it is important to take into account all three or four sources of information: the find familiar spell, the MM sidebars for the special familiars, *and* the MM sidebar about NPC spellcasters and familiars. If we are throwing Chain Pact into the mix, then we also need to refer to the warlock entry. Almost everyone seems to ignore at least one of the sources of information, probably because it is messy trying to fit all of them together. I do think harmonizing them makes for a more enjoyable interpretation though.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Except that the pseudodragon can only make that bond with a spellcaster

That's not in opposition to anything which I have said.

And the variant at the back of the MM that discusses an NPC spellcaster getting a pseudodragon familiar specifies they must be able to cast find familiar.

That side-bar has zero interaction with the other side-bars, and demonstrates nothing except that NPCs are not held to the same rules that PCs are - most strongly evident in mentioning "...or some other Tiny monster, such as a crawling claw..." which is not available as a familiar for PCs.

That side-bar also doesn't actually state a requirement for the NPC to be able to cast find familiar in order to have a familiar - it's mention of find familiar is that any spellcaster that knows it is likely to have a familiar. The two are significantly different.

Nothing says that an NPC can't have met a pseudodragon, imp, or quasit, and had that creature offer up the service as familiar mentioned in those creatures' respective variant side-bars.

Almost everyone seems to ignore at least one of the sources of information, probably because it is messy trying to fit all of them together.

I ignore the sources of information circumstantially, such as when one source is written without requiring any interaction with another source.

So I don't ignore the find familiar spell when working out how the Pact of the Chain feature works because it specifically calls out interaction with the spell, but I do ignore a side-bar about NPCs having familiars when not dealing with an NPC, or the variant familiar side-bar when it is the unrelated find familiar spell, rather than the creature's choice, resulting in the creature becoming a familiar.

 

[CapnZapp]

I notice nobody has mentioned the obvious interpretation:

When the MM talks about granting powers to familiars' masters, they're focused on NPC masters.

That the PHB and the MM gives different messages in this regard does not feel strange or wrong to me.

It simply means that an Imp serving a Chainlock can't give her magic resistance, but the same Imp serving a monster or NPC can.

To me, this is the straight-forward way of resolving that seemingly incongruous happenstance.

 

[CapnZapp]

.

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.

This.

Obviously the ninjas ninja just after posting...

 

[S'mon]

I notice nobody has mentioned the obvious interpretation:

When the MM talks about granting powers to familiars' masters, they're focused on NPC masters.

That the PHB and the MM gives different messages in this regard does not feel strange or wrong to me.

It simply means that an Imp serving a Chainlock can't give her magic resistance, but the same Imp serving a monster or NPC can.

To me, this is the straight-forward way of resolving that seemingly incongruous happenstance.

I think the way I'd generally run it is that a PC (or NPC) can use Find Familiar as a ritual to pact with a 'real' quasit/pseudodragon/imp etc they find on their adventures, if the creature is willing. That gives them the creature as a familiar and they get all the benefits. But if the creature is ever killed, then
it's gone.
Currently the Bard IMC has a familiar spirit in the form of a Faerie Dragon, but I'm running it as a standard PHB familiar that can go invisible; it can't cast spells.

 

[SailorNash]

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

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

Just from this thread, I can see that multiple people have multiple opinions on familiar spell resistance, as they do with Hex, short rests and concentration, and so on. Elsewhere people debate whether invocations are tied to character or class level. Can magic pact weapons change form? Probably other things as well.

If every DM does this differently, in different combinations based on their own interpretation, then I as a player don't know what to expect when I sit down at a random table.

Therefore the class is "broken" not by being over-or under-powered, but by not being clearly written. There isn't an obvious answer to these questions within the class write up itself, and as a result core features could vary wildly even without any custom house rules to change things.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Thanks for responding, [MENTION=6788401]SailorNash[/MENTION].

Do you generally go to fresh tables assuming houserules? Do you generally not ask a new DM if they have an opinion on something you are specifically finding interest in playing?

As far as warlocks and familiars are concerned, I would think the safe bet is to assume what is written in the PHB, WRT the class, the spell, and the alt familiars (yes those are also in the PHB--with no reference to the caster getting MR) are the default. If a particular DM wants to let you have the sidebar benefits from the MM, how is that "breaking" the class write-up. No different than the DM adding options from the DMG. I mean, heck, the DM has a slew of optional rules available for implementation in the PHB. Sitting down at a new group can be greatly impacted just with those.

But the class itself seems clear enough to me. What you get from it seems clear. Just as I don't see anything not cleat about the spell. Anything on top of that must be added gravy.

 

[Guest 6801328]

(In other words, it's not a class feature - it's an internet feature)

Ha! Great answer.

And to your point, there have been active debates about the mechanics of just about every class. Does that make them all badly written?

I think not.