D&D 5E Warlock Pact of the Talisman--What Am I Missing?

[CleverNickName]

(Found on page 70 of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything)

The way I read it, the amulet grants your warlock a +1d4 to an ability check, a limited number of times per day. That's it.

Compared to Pact of the Blade, which gives you a magic weapon of your choice that can't be lost or stolen...or Pact of the Chain, which gives you a ritual spell and an improved familiar that can fight for you...or Pact of the Tome, which gives you three cantrips from any spell list... the Talisman feels very underwhelming.

Am I missing something? Am I just not seeing how cool and awesome this tiny buff is?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I believe that the concept is to allow this pact to support the party, by giving the Talisman to someone else.

But yes, the base Pact ability and the associated invocations are extremely underwhelming.

 

[humble minion]

I believe that the concept is to allow this pact to support the party, by giving the Talisman to someone else.

It's a cool idea. Especially appropriate for a fiend pact, where the patron would EXPECT his warlock to tempt people with little bits of power in exchange for favours.

The implementation is very very weak though.

 

[jgsugden]

The 'Strength' of the Talisman Pact is in the Invocations. They're not strong, but a careful party can take advantage of them. I dropped it on an NPC and there was a PC death as a result. The Rebuke of the Talisman allows someone to set up a push that can't be avoided with an ability check or a missed attack roll. Anything that is 100% going to work has a certain reliable benefit.

It also works well on a BBEG as you can put their Talisman on their 'Lieutentant' and give them bonuses and use Gaze of Two Minds to have the BBEG watch a battle without being there. I've got a GOO Warlock bad guy in one of campaign that uses Gaze of Two Minds, Dominate Person, and Scatter to use people as unwilling spies or to trigger something bad. It would have been nice to put an amulet on the minion to protect them a bit and make it easier for them to sneak, etc...

 

[Kurotowa]

I think people have covered the main uses for it, so I'll address the "why" instead. Why the Pact of the Talisman exists is that if you don't want your supplements to fall into the trap of power creep, they have to deliver something different than existed before. That way it isn't a simple calculation to see if it's objectively better or worse than the old options. It's doing something new, so it stands on its own to do that.

Pact of the Talisman and its invocations are an option for someone who want to play a Warlock in more of a support role. It lets you load up another party member with small buffs while still making you feel active in doing so. Is it a bit weak, compared to the other options? Yeah, probably a little. But it's doing something different, and doesn't fail entirely, and that's what matters.

 

[J-H]

Yeah, it's the invocations. +2.5 on failed skills is pretty meh, but is a bit of an edge.
Teleport to the warlock or to the talisman wearer from anywhere on the same plane at 12th level lets you benefit from someone else teleporting.
+d4 to a failed save is nice about 10% of the time.
10' push away any time someone hits your front liner is very good.

The good use case that comes to mind is to give this to the party barbarian or fighter or rogue. It helps keep the character alive, lets them charge ahead or scout solo and have an extraction method, or lets you join them if you get attacked, and lets them passively push enemies off cliffs by simply positioning themselves well.

 

[CleverNickName]

I hadn't spent much time thinking about the impact of a warlock giving his talisman to someone else for the long term. That changes the dynamic of the class quite a bit.

Someone on Reddit pointed out that Initiative is just a Dexterity check. I'm not sure I agree, but if your DM agrees, you could spend a use of this talisman to give yourself (or whoever is wearing it) a +1d4 to their initiative roll. Again, not huge--but the party's Assassin might appreciate it.

The talisman-specific invocations are a good idea. It's a shame they only provided 3; it would have been nice to have a few more examples to build on. Casting touch spells through the talisman to the wearer, scrying on the wearer, communicating telepathically with the wearer...there is so much they could do with it. (cracks knuckles) Well I guess I'll have to do it instead.

 

[Gorck]

Someone on Reddit pointed out that Initiative is just a Dexterity check. I'm not sure I agree, but if your DM agrees, you could spend a use of this talisman to give yourself (or whoever is wearing it) a +1d4 to their initiative roll. Again, not huge--but the party's Assassin might appreciate it.

Yes, Initiative is merely a Dexterity-based ability check. But the Pact of the Talisman specifically says, “when the wearer FAILS an ability check …..”. You can’t really “fail” an initiative roll.

 

[Ancalagon]

I too found it to be rather underwhelming...

edit: From reading it. Playtest is the best way to tell, and I haven't playtested it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, Initiative is merely a Dexterity-based ability check. But the Pact of the Talisman specifically says, “when the wearer FAILS an ability check …..”. You can’t really “fail” an initiative roll.

With the psi rogue and the new fightees second wind, wher you don't use a charge if you still fail, I hope they define fail better.

Can you fail a perception check to find traps if there is none present?

Assume you roll a 15. No trap. Do you give the die back? Does the player assume there is a trap with higher DC?
Don't you give it back. Can the player assume that everything is safe?

What if there is indeed a higher DC trap.

Same for talisman. You roll a 15 and find no trap. Should they use a talisman? Should the DM tell them: you can't use it as you successfully checked the hallway.
Should the DM let them, knowing it is futile?
Should the DM just tell the player to decide themself if it is a failure or not?