D&D 5E Warlock Clarification

[AxisofJedi]

"When you gain this feature, choose three cantrips from any class’s spell list.

You choose a class's spell list, ie...Bard. Then choose 3 cantrips from that list. Its clear cut to me IMO. 1 class list, 3 cantrips.

 

[Digitalnamshub]

Have to agree with Uller and others. Given that they already have perfectly good phrasing in the game under Ritual Caster, the fact that they choose not to use that wording says to me that the intent was likely different.

Besides, when you take Ritual Caster, you're modeling a second path of study. The warlock pact boons are powers granted you by your patron. No reason your Queen Mab, Mephistopheles, or Yog-Sothoth would limit these (fairly minor) magics to those bounded by one mortal (and, let's be honest, largely arbitrary) means of categorization.

Great thematic reasoning, and the point about not using the language they all ready used in Ritual Csster, is a sound point.

I'm still guess I should ask in Sage Advice for confirmation since it seems there is not definitive in the books.

 

[Uller]

I would expect that if the intention was to limit it to one class' s spell list then both features would use the same spell list and the last paragraph of tome of ancient secrets would have verbiage stating that any new rituals must also be from the same list. It has no such verbiage and says only that new spells must be rituals.

 

[TwoSix]

"When you gain this feature, choose three cantrips from any class’s spell list.

You choose a class's spell list, ie...Bard. Then choose 3 cantrips from that list. Its clear cut to me IMO. 1 class list, 3 cantrips.

So this rule is pretty much the blue-black/white-gold dress, then. Alright!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Great thematic reasoning, and the point about not using the language they all ready used in Ritual Csster, is a sound point.

I'm still guess I should ask in Sage Advice for confirmation since it seems there is not definitive in the books.

Two things.

1.) before asking, check that you actually want cantrips from multiple lists. There aren't all that many good cantrips anyway, especially since you already have Eldritch Blast. If you just want Vicious Mockery, Prestidigitation, and Minor Illusion, they're all on the bard list anyway.

2.) More significant issue is "if I take a cantrip from the druid list, is the spellcasting ability based off Wis still or Cha?" Bardic Magical Secrets has a clause stating that the stolen spells count as bard spells for you, but warlocks have no such clause. If the answer is "they still use Wis" you probably don't want to steal Sacred Flame, etc.

 

[Digitalnamshub]

Thanks for the advice. You make a valid point, and picking all from Wizard or Bard are both good options if one has to pick a single class for the cantrips and rituals.

2.) More significant issue is "if I take a cantrip from the druid list, is the spellcasting ability based off Wis still or Cha?"

As far as your second point. Sage Advice ruled warlocks can use Charisma for these.

 

[Snapdragyn]

"When you gain this feature, choose three cantrips from any class’s spell list.

You choose a class's spell list, ie...Bard. Then choose 3 cantrips from that list. Its clear cut to me IMO. 1 class list, 3 cantrips.

Your second paragraph pretty much lays out exactly why I come to the opposite conclusion.

If they wanted it all to be from one class list, they would've said 'choose any class's spell list, then pick 3 cantrips from it' IMO (or at least, they should have - much more clear). Since the wording puts 'choose three cantrips' first, I believe that following that with 'any class's spell list' simply means those three are not limited to any specific class spell list.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree with the (very general) view of the thread. "Any class's list" should be interpreted broadly, not narrowly, and "classes' lists" looks pretty solidly ungrammatical to me. It's far messier (it implies the existence of classes that share lists as well as classes with multiple lists). As written, the Warlock class feature is noticeably different from the text of a feat which performs a similar function and explicitly doesn't allow the broad interpretation. Interpreting it narrowly seems to serve very little purpose since cantrips are mostly divvied up based on flavor rather than function.

Of course, I strongly recommend that you still submit the question because it is a potential area of confusion and extra clarity never hurts.

And while it's just personal and anecdotal, I don't think I would ever expect to hear a native English speaker speak of "baskets' inventories" or the like. If you want people to take from only one basket, you say, "Choose a/one basket, and take X candies from it." If you want people to be able to mix and match, you say, "Take two candies from any basket." Doing some digging, it would seem at least two sources (the former coming from Cambridge University Press) suggest that this reading is the correct one for using the word "any."

 

[green_destiny]

Same topic here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ck-Pact-of-the-Boon-Specific-Wording-Question

My answer to this is still the same:

In order to justify the reasoning behind the phrase, let's first take a look of how the PHB specifies an additional cantrip of the SAME class.

Let's look at Magic Initiate Feat:

Choose a class: bard, cleric...etc. You learn two cantrips from THAT class's spell list.

It cleary states that you choose two cantrips from a choosen class' spell list. Unlike with the wording of Pact of Tome.

When you gain this feature, choose three cantrips from ANY class's spell list.

See their difference? So it makes more sense to interpret it as choosing three cantrips from different or same class' spell list. Else it would have been very specific.

 

[Mallus]

My take is that 5e is meant to be read/constructed broadly rather than narrowly, so in the case of Tome Pact Warlock this means a) 3 cantrips from 1 or more different classes and b) which then use the CHA as their casting stat.

The former is just a clean parsing of the text and latter is, admittedly, more of a inference, based on the idea that class abilities are intended to be beneficial.